Professional Dopers - Forum Archive

Aug 24, 2012 at 09:23 PM

Jeff I'm about as anti-this-government-and-congress as you'll find, but it seems like you're the one making it black and white. Should no money be spent on anything as long as there are starving children? In a perfect world I'd say sure, but USADAs budget is about $8 mil a year. That barely registers on the federal budget.

Like JP says, if there is evidence, and he is guilty, are we really just pointing fingers and saying "looky here bad, bad man?" by thinking he should be accountable for breaking rules?

Why does the fact that they can't go after Coppi, Anquetil, and Merckx mean they shouldn't go after Armstrong? That doesn't make any sense. Should every bad act that's ever gone unpunished just be allowed?

Are we really turning our heads to 95% of the people who are doing it? Hasn't at least half of the top 10 of every modern tour served a suspension? The magnitude of Lance's punishment matches how much he won and how much he decieved. He's a big fish so catching him makes a big splash, but he's no different really than anybody else who has been busted.

I'm not saying this is the most important thing in the world by any means. Is just is what it is. But it's not nothing. The fact that it's just a sport doesn't mean its wrong for people to give a shit about it. People can care about things that are relatively frivolous while simultaneously caring more about things that aren't.

Jeff Owens

Aug 24, 2012 at 09:43 PM

You're missing the point. They can go after those guys. They admitted to taking drugs and actually FAILED tests. Why don't they strip all their wins away? What is the timeline? I understand making a figure out of taking LA down, but I'd like them to do it to everyone.

Ohhhhhhh, gawd.....Tygart just pulled the classic "for the children" American catchall excuse on NPR. Paging George Carlin....

And yes, we are turning our heads to the large number of people in sports that are doping. You're incorrect if you believe he's no different than anybody else who's been busted. Even the judge who dismissed his case this week alluded to that. I just think people need to ask themselves the question of *why* they care so much about it. I don't think it means you're incapable of also having important things going on in your life! Sorry, dude!

Let's go see Premium Rush and forget about it. XOXOXO

Anybody actually riding this weekend? I've been given the clear for "no quick accelerations" riding. Which is how I always ride, right?

Ryan J

Aug 24, 2012 at 09:53 PM

to be continued on carbon fiber at 16.5 mph

dstokes

Aug 24, 2012 at 10:33 PM

From NYTimes showing TdF podium. Pictures indicate those involved in doping.

podium.png

Jules

Aug 25, 2012 at 03:22 AM

I call the "isn't there better things to spend our money on?" the "Gotfried Manouver" after the fantastic scene in Beverly Hills Cop (some number) with Gilbert screaming, "There are people out there with chainsaws and you're arresting me?!?"

Why go after Armstrong? The anti-doping movement (if it can be called that) is largely a laughing stock (see the infographic above) and Armstrong is a world-famous, gazillionarie who built his empire on methodically doping and entwining his magical "survived cancer-to-beat-all-cyclists" myth into his cycling success.

The fundament of his beautiful myth is that he didn't just beat cancer to ride the Tour, he beat it to rule the tour with an iron fist.

There are lots of different angles behind "justifying" the effort to bring him down but frankly how about "those are the rules he agreed to play by and the court upheld?"

After all the debacles, the amateurs over-penalized, the champions under-penalized, the boldfaced lies they let slip, the incestuous UCI situation, etc - is there really anything - in the public eye that is - that anti-doping could do that would be WORSE than letting this guy go?

jfogden

Aug 25, 2012 at 04:04 AM

dstokes said:

From NYTimes showing TdF podium. Pictures indicate those involved in doping.

This is what I mean. Leipheimer? just because he rode for postal/disco? Then why leave out Julich, he rode for motorola just like lance and he rode for CSC as did Basso. He also rode for cofidis in '98 and the KOM that year doped so all of cofidis must have. Why leave out Kloden, who almost certainly doped and rode for T-mobile where everyone doped. They left out Heras - a big omission - and the original Kelme Dr was the columbian guy who taught Fuentes how to do it... so they're all cheats too. A real shit list

If all you have to do is 'claim' someone doped or that they are guilty due to association then why dont we just eliminate the entire peloton. Then we can hire a whole new crop of riders and start fresh! Bikesnob thought it would be the way to go, just ordinary joes at the tour. Im sure Yacks could get behind that idea

Jules

Aug 25, 2012 at 01:15 PM

http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/2012/08/24/texas-fold-em/?cm_mmc=Twitter-_-Bicycling-_-Content-Blog-_-texas-fold

More to come...

Ryan J

Aug 25, 2012 at 05:38 PM

I think this might be the best take on the situation that I have read: http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2012/08/25/lance-armstrong-cognitive-dissonance-as-a-heros-journey-ends/

Jeff Owens

Aug 25, 2012 at 06:15 PM

You guys are just fanboi's that are all jilted now b/c you bought the whole enchilada hook line and sinker: DVD's, books, kit, and had LA posters all over your bedroom walls. I saw it, people. I've got pictures and I'm threatening release unless you come to arbitration at the new donut hut in Nyack that Joe and I visited today.

I love using the "Off Topic" emoticon button on your posts even though they're completely on topic.

mugwump

Aug 25, 2012 at 06:26 PM

jfogden said:

This is what I mean. Leipheimer? just because he rode for postal/disco? Then why leave out Julich, he rode for motorola just like lance and he rode for CSC as did Basso. He also rode for cofidis in '98 and the KOM that year doped so all of cofidis must have. Why leave out Kloden, who almost certainly doped and rode for T-mobile where everyone doped. They left out Heras - a big omission - and the original Kelme Dr was the columbian guy who taught Fuentes how to do it... so they're all cheats too. A real shit list

Jason,

Not to pick on you, but this is where better knowledge would help everyone. First, Leipheimer was busted for doping when he was a young rider racing domestically. It was allegedly for Claritin-D, but I've long thought, like with Bunde, the officials gave him something they could prove easily rather than the harder stuff. Leipheimer and Gerolsteiner were warned by the UCI that Leipheimer's blood values were indicative of doping, and that the UCI told them they were close to proving it. Obviously it didn't happen.

I'll grant that Julich came "on" starting at the Vuelta in 1996 and running to 1999. He was a different rider before and after--though he never has been officially linked to any scandal. I think Gaumont, allegedly the dirtiest of the Cofidis dopers, pointed a finger at Julich, but it never stuck. Kloden has been linked to scandals, particularly the Freiburg clinic, but it never went anywhere. Heras has been a proven doper. You left out Escartin, who, while out of racing when Fuentes came to light, was certainly there when we started seeing miraculous performances from guys like Santiago Botero.

So, no, it's not just claiming guilt by association.

As for bikesnob, he's soft on Lance, has been since Lance wanted to ride with him. Bikesnob went out of his way to trash the Outside mag investigation into Livestrong, and as I recall, his critique made little sense.

jfogden

Aug 25, 2012 at 07:53 PM

JP, I dont feel picked on, I was mainly being facetious about the OP missing several riders. I left off escartin by accident though I did mention Kelme for a reason, botero is a good add. I had clean forgotten about the original levi domestic charge. I never got the feeling Julich doped, just that he was poorly utilized by most teams, t-mobile in particular. Klodi seems like a nice enough guy but his performance jump early in his career came at an odd moment - like when his contract was up for renewal, not to mention the T-mobile culture and his move to switzerland to get away from the german media.

Like I said earlier - I was being facetious.

Heck they missed a lot of 'potential' or real dopers - frenchmen too - the saintly jaja and perennial housewives heartthrob Virenque first and foremost

I was going to add that if accusations are all we need to get someone charged with doping then we should accuse the entire NY scene of being dopers then we should clean up - win all - pun intended. but I didn't...

normanzo

Aug 26, 2012 at 02:27 PM

Isn't there something of an impossibility inherent in Lance's statement "enough is enough"? By choosing not to go to arbitration, is he opening the door to many, many accusations of fraud and won't he therefore end up in court for years to come? Will he really be able to walk away from this?

jfogden

Aug 26, 2012 at 06:51 PM

Fraud would be a civil law case, a different thing entirely. Evidence and its support would be of a different standard

jfogden

Aug 26, 2012 at 06:55 PM

Yet another take on all this drama

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/26/cycling-clean-up

comments are interesting - these are englishmen this time not partisan US bikeriders:

"There is so little faith in the UCI from within cycling that when someone high profile is caught doping the conspiracy theories come out about why they were caught now.

Contador after he fell out with Armstrong in the 2009 tour - his sample was sent to the only lab in Europe that could test for Clenbuterol. The Court of Arbitration for Sport suggested it was most likely it came from a contaminated food supplement. Schleck after he sues Armstrong's mate Bruyneel - his sample was sent to the only lab in Europe that tested for Xipamide. Vinokourov failed a test after failing out with Bruyneel as well.

These, viewed with the way Armstrong tests were covered up and how he was reportedly informed of out of competition tests in advance, suggests doping in cycling is all about who you know and politics"

Jules

Aug 28, 2012 at 01:32 AM

Open letter from LA

http://www.theonion.com/articles/havent-we-all-done-steroids-in-a-way,29317/

mugwump

Aug 28, 2012 at 02:06 AM

I've long thought the "500 tests" line was patently false.

Someone did some digging and believes he was tested 236 times at most. And even with that number, few of the tests were looking for EPO.

http://dimspace.co.uk/lancetesthistory.png

Jules

Aug 29, 2012 at 12:44 AM

I think this one is just great; broken english and all

http://captaintbag.tumblr.com/post/30184403698/1-a-the-integrated-pattern-of-human-behavior

jfogden

Aug 29, 2012 at 05:19 PM

Not just in the US masters...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/danish-federation-board-member-positive-for-doping

A federation board member... I gotta laugh!

tito

Aug 31, 2012 at 04:35 PM

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/other_sports/general/view/20120826wholl_get_lance_armstrongs_tour_titles_no_easy_answer/

I really just like this article for this part:

Road-race cycling, one of the world’s most grueling endurance sports, has been plagued by drug use and other cheating ever since the first Tour in 1903 — when competitors juiced up on wine, cocaine, wine, even strychnine, to get a lift in the nearly inhuman three-week race.

WilliamDC

Aug 31, 2012 at 04:53 PM

dude

tito

remember the time we had wine and then wine?

sogood

twoyacks

Sep 01, 2012 at 02:26 AM

Strychnine was a chaser for the strong Italian wines. My solution for ending doping entails giving sponsors "claw back" power. If ANY team has a rider test positive, the TEAM must return all equipment and MONEY to the sponsor. The UCI should make these agreements mandatory. One failed test or one non analytical finding should also result in a TEAM suspension. Follow the money. Teams would soon be tripping over themselves to sign the riders they believe to be not only talented but CLEAN. Does Trek bicycles care that their sponsored athletes are doped or if their frames cross the finish line first? If they cared about clean competition, they would sue every sponsored rider that tested positive or was found to have cheated through non analytical findings for actions that damage the brand. If we not only grant, but insist on monetary clawback by sponsors we can cleanse the sport by shutting off the $$$ sprocket.

Jeff Owens

Sep 02, 2012 at 08:49 PM

Awesome:

Hamilton was shaky with a fever, suffering from a skull-cracking headache and urinating blood -- not a mere rosy tinge of it, but "dark, dark red, almost black'' blood. He knew exactly why. "I'd transfused a bag full of dead blood cells,'' he writes in the matter-of-fact manner the rest of us might use to describe ingesting a bad oyster. "My body felt toxic ... I got my phone and set it next to me on the bed, in case I had to call for an ambulance.''

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8321135/book-former-lance-armstrong-teammate-friend-turns-banal-very-ugly

vlad

Sep 02, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Aww man, now I want to pee blood. So effing pro!

mperlberg

Sep 05, 2012 at 01:20 AM

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/jorg-jaksche-doping-hypocrisy-and-a-dog-called-bella

dstokes

Sep 05, 2012 at 09:40 PM

Very interesting discussion going on in the cyclingnews.com forum between Jonathan Vaughters and the riff-raff.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=18436&page=12

This is summarized in an article
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vaughters-why-he-didnt-hire-jaksche

Amazing quote from the discussion:

Prompt:
I mean JV obviously knew what went on at USP so in signing ex-USP riders did he give them the same kind of tests and examination that he gave JJ? Or do you only get the tests and questions about doping if you've been busted, not if you come from the DS's former team where he knows (because he was part of it) the doping that went on.

Vaughters:
Valid question. CVV, Zabriskie, Danielson, while all clearly have a past, and from an ethical standpoint are no different from JJ, there is a very pragmatic difference. That difference is performance based. Basically, I knew from what my time at USPS, how "inside" or not those riders were. Based on this, I knew there transgressions, while ethically the same as JJ's, were much less in terms of enhancing performance. Therefore, i knew they could perform close to their enhanced level, clean. I did not feel this was the case with JJ, because he was "all in"....

Dekker was also " all in" at times, and if you'll notice, he's struggling. I hope that will change, but we will see.

Ask JJ about me. we don't have a personal history at all. I've spoken to him 3-4 times in my life. However, I'm a big believer in first impressions, and my first impression of JJ was that he was very intelligent, but in a sneaky way.

For Benotti: I don't like gossip because it tears young riders apart.

dstokes

Sep 05, 2012 at 09:49 PM

Or this:

Originally Posted by Epicycle

It is interesting that JV talks/writes very specifically about some of the riders he's dealt with as Garmin boss while being vague about his own past.

It does seem to still be the same type of thing that happened to Jorg...if you talk about management then you get screwed. Jorg got blackballed because he revealed details of team management being involved in his doping (I believe the only rider he singled out was Jens Voigt, for his hypocrisy). It's the old saying...sh!t runs downhill. Once you go into details about those in management...that's when you run into problems.

Vaughters:
I didn't go into any details about anyone. No names. Nothing. Same as me. All that will be public, eventually. That's been an inevitability for almost 3 yrs now. Just wait.

You thirst for blood will be sated.

mugwump

Sep 06, 2012 at 04:07 AM

Vaughters shows up all sorts of places online.

Here he is getting into an argument with Steve Tilford on Tilford's blog: http://www.stevetilford.com/?p=21221

Lance has his PR crew. Vaughters seems to be a one-man social media pr machine, though I don't see what his bigger picture is.

Like his recent comments on the cyclingnews forum. I'm not surprised that Danielson or Zabriskie were doping, but outing them along with Vande Velde certainly was odd. At least it seems that way now. Maybe they all testified and he thinks its going to come out, so he's getting in front of it. Funny part of his Danielson comments was he confirmed what I've long believed--that Danielson was doping, physically fragile and mentally weak. Maybe he can now shed light on his claims about Danielson's metabolism, something about being an eskimo.

http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/2009/09/01/jonathan-vaughters-interview-evolution-at-garmin-not-revolution/

Q: What has the issue been with Tom? You mentioned previously that it was a problem with how he was using his energy systems – his ability to burn carbs vs. fat?

A: Yeah, see, Tom is a confusing guy. He’d go hunger flat really easy but gain weight really easily. He’s a quarter Eskimo.

Q: Didn’t know that.

A: Yeah. So he stores fat really easily but doesn’t burn it and readily uses sugars. So you look at the Tom Danielson pre-2009 lactate profile and you look at the VO2Max and it’s “Oh my God, this is the most talented rider on earth.” Then you notice the underlying acidity. It’s always high, but at threshold it’s even higher.

Jules

Sep 20, 2012 at 06:16 PM

http://downthebackstretch.blogspot.com/2012/09/its-all-about-blood.html?m=1

Jeff Owens

Sep 24, 2012 at 10:28 PM

Since I know you former Lance fans love this stuff: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/sep/24/tyler-hamilton-tour-de-france I'm not enjoying Tyler's manorexic hippie carrot-top look though. Not convincing for a whistleblower.

Jeff Owens

Sep 26, 2012 at 07:28 PM

http://inrng.com/2012/09/david-millar-documentary/#more-11091

Dapper.