The Beacon Message Board

And Sastre? Maybe.

"Without Drugs, no way would have he beaten Basso, Pantani, Ullrich, Heras, Hamilton, etc etc, probably top 20 at best, going on his pre 1999 grand stage results."

How many of these riders were proven cheats themselves? And no way can you know whether he would have won or not. You can presume all you like though.

Breaking News:

Audax United Kingdom Limited will be testing all participants at this year's Sunrise and Snowdrop Express for doping. For postal entrants, please include a jam-jar when sending your 2xSAEs.

Any evidence of a rider without cake in their blood will receive a life time ban and will be expected to return all their Brevet Cards.









.

George wrote:

CakeStop wrote:

Philip Whiteman wrote: Whatever the truth, it's refreshing to see a bit of balance at this point. Even if Armstrong is guilty as charged, maybe he was at least a shrewd judge of character.

Goodness! Are you still in the 'if' camp, Steve?

Not really no, although open minded still. That was more of an underhanded compliment for Armstrong in that I suspect that Hammond may not have been so easily bullied into silence. Ed may be right though in that Hammond simply wasn't part of the Armstrong plan.

Philip Whiteman wrote:Any evidence of a rider without cake in their blood will receive a life time ban and will be expected to return all their Brevet Cards.

Watch out for Czeck neck.

Neil Compton wrote:"Without Drugs, no way would have he beaten Basso, Pantani, Ullrich, Heras, Hamilton, etc etc, probably top 20 at best, going on his pre 1999 grand stage results."

Who's the quote from, Neil?

Neil Compton wrote:How many of these riders were proven cheats themselves?

Most, if not all. That's why he couldn't have beaten them without doping.

Neil Compton wrote:And no way can you know whether he would have won or not.

Exactly. That's why the doping invalidates everything.

Neil Compton wrote:"Without Drugs, no way would have he beaten Basso, Pantani, Ullrich, Heras, Hamilton, etc etc, probably top 20 at best, going on his pre 1999 grand stage results."

How many of these riders were proven cheats themselves? And no way can you know whether he would have won or not. You can presume all you like though.

All of them?

"Most, if not all. That's why he couldn't have beaten them without doping. "

How do you know George?

Look i'm no expert on drugs but if you or Ed are telling me that they can turn an average rider into a tour winner then i'm sorry but i think thats crap.

That's what Ed is implying -

quote="Ed Moss"]Yes it is a great story, shame he cheated his way to doing it. What we were watching was the result of cheating and having a doping program which was ahead of the rest of the riders.

Without Drugs, no way would have he beaten Basso, Pantani, Ullrich, Heras, Hamilton, etc etc, probably top 20 at best, going on his pre 1999 grand stage results. Wouldn't have been such a great comeback without the hep of the Mr Ferrari."

Drugs can turn a great rider into a tour winner, but you have to start with talent.
LA had loads of talent, but to win the tour, he chose to cheat and take drugs.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins ... -christmas

I think in all likelihood, given the sophistication and apparent effectiveness of the doping program at US Postal, if no-one had doped in Lance's era (including himself) he wouldn't have won 7 TdFs in a row. He may have won 1 or 2, but what I think we saw was how much more effective his drug-taking was than others'.

BUT we'll never know for sure. We can speculate all we like about what happened in the past, but I'd rather look to the present and see who will win it clean. (Unless doping programs have got more sophisticated and are set to be exposed 10 years further down the line. But I for one think the doping era is largely gone following the recent purge/bio-passports etc., and will remain so if complacency is avoided.)

I'll stick my neck out and go for Contador, then Froome, Rodriguez, Wiggins.

Neil Compton wrote:How do you know George?

All the people you name have been caught doping. Several of them (and others) have said publicly that they believe that all their main rivals were doing drugs too.

Neil Compton wrote:Look i'm no expert on drugs but if you or Ed are telling me that they can turn an average rider into a tour winner then i'm sorry but i think thats crap.

Neil, given the risks to body and career, no one but a moron would do it if they didn't believe it had a significant effect. From memory, the doctor quoted in the BBC article that I linked to before LA was sanctioned suggested something like an extra 50W over the final kms of a climb. Also, somewhere in all those linked articles, there was an an America rider who had been a team-mated but packed in because of the dope, who said that it was generally believed amongst riders that the doping programme in total added about 20%. Even if that is a wild exaggeration, what do you suppose the difference is in power output between a rider who jumps near the summit and one who's followed him all the way, but can't quite hold his wheel when the crunch comes? 5% ... maybe less? Drugs don't need to make much difference to make a critical difference.

The support Armstrong received from his team was a key factor in his 'successes' too. As I'm sure we all remember, USPS were so much better than any other team including Telekom. It was not unusual for Armstrong to have 3 or 4 team mates around him in the high mountains whereas the others (Ullrich, Beloki etc would be down to one or none). This isn't to say Telekom and ONCE etc weren't doping, but USPS were clearly much better organised in terms of getting all their riders at the critical 49% haematocrit.

George wrote:

Ed Moss wrote:I hate to stay this but, I'm no fan of Albert but to take on Armstrong/Bruyneel, and win, takes some bottle and mental strength (2009 TDF.) I doubt he was doping with the help of LA and Bruyneel, they were probably doing everything to stop him winning.

I don't doubt that he has many admirable qualities, Ed. As I said about Lance in the other thread, people are complex: no one is all good or all bad. However, I do suspect that he has doped in the past and I do suspect that his ties with that world may have influenced what he said to the press recently about Lance. (Lance presumably has it in his power to do a lot of damage to a lot of people if he ever chooses to say what he knows.) Also don't forget that Bertie hooked up with Bruyneel and Astana before Lance decided to make a come-back and kept some questionable company prior to that.

Simply as a person I find Bertie much more likeable than Lance. Also, following his suspension and all the recent stuff, I hope that he now races clean. But it would take a lot to convince me that the steak story wasn't a load of old bull. (Pun absolutely intended.)

I'm no fan of Contador but was suprised he spoke up for Armstrong considering their apparent rivalry when Lance made his comeback and they were on the same team.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20071585

George wrote:

Neil Compton wrote:How do you know George?

All the people you name have been caught doping. Several of them (and others) have said publicly that they believe that all their main rivals were doing drugs too.

Neil Compton wrote:Look i'm no expert on drugs but if you or Ed are telling me that they can turn an average rider into a tour winner then i'm sorry but i think thats crap.

Neil, given the risks to body and career, no one but a moron would do it if they didn't believe it had a significant effect. From memory, the doctor quoted in the BBC article that I linked to before LA was sanctioned suggested something like an extra 50W over the final kms of a climb. Also, somewhere in all those linked articles, there was an an America rider who had been a team-mated but packed in because of the dope, who said that it was generally believed amongst riders that the doping programme in total added about 20%. Even if that is a wild exaggeration, what do you suppose the difference is in power output between a rider who jumps near the summit and one who's followed him all the way, but can't quite hold his wheel when the crunch comes? 5% ... maybe less? Drugs don't need to make much difference to make a critical difference.

Don't forget that after he recovered from cancer his weight loss helped him to become a better climber. As you say Lance isn't a moron but having nearly died from cancer to then start doping and injecting yourself with stuff with risks of infection and what not is just plain crazy.

I remember one particular climb where he was making out that he was having a bad day and sitting at the back of the group that was putting in loads of effort to drop him only to find that he wasn't having a bad day after all but just letting them do all the work. That is just smart riding.

Neil Compton wrote:
Don't forget that after he recovered from cancer his weight loss helped him to become a better climber. As you say Lance isn't a moron but having nearly died from cancer to then start doping and injecting yourself with stuff with risks of infection and what not is just plain crazy.

An equally valid point of view is that compared to the chemo etc that Armstrong received the EPO, transfusions, testosterone, etc was small beer. And, as it was a professionally administered regime, the risks of infection were minimal. They weren't sharing needles and the blood transfusions were of their own blood.

[/u]

Between Peaks wrote:

Neil Compton wrote:
Don't forget that after he recovered from cancer his weight loss helped him to become a better climber. As you say Lance isn't a moron but having nearly died from cancer to then start doping and injecting yourself with stuff with risks of infection and what not is just plain crazy.

An equally valid point of view is that compared to the chemo etc that Armstrong received the EPO, transfusions, testosterone, etc was small beer. And, as it was a professionally administered regime, the risks of infection were minimal. They weren't sharing needles and the blood transfusions were of their own blood.

[/u]

Yer but what about the story of motoman.

http://road.cc/content/news/68911-lequi ... -epo-lance

carrying stuff on a motorbike dosn't sound very professional to me.

But it would take a lot to convince me that the steak story wasn't a load of old bull.

Neil,

As I understand it Contador was found to have an amount of Clenbuterol in his system, actually below the proscribed limit. He said that the only way this could of happened was that he had eaten contaminated meat. This was rejected because it was said that Clenbuterol was banned for use in the EU and could therefore contaminated meat could not be the source.

All that I can say is that I have a problem in France with moles in my garden. I have tried just about everything and the only way to eliminate them is to kill them using a prepared bait.
I use a product call Taupicide, Taup being French for Mole.
Now one of the the active ingredientsis alpha-Chloralose and use of this is banned in the EU.
I bought a packet of Taupicide from my local agricultural suppliers about 6 weeks ago and yet it shouldn't be available. I have also about 3-5kg drums of sodium chlorate weed killer which I purchased after the EU banned it's sale.

There is a device on sale in a local shop which if one was found in possession in this country would treated as a very serious offence. All that I will say is that it is not a firearm.

I would imagine that the same thing can be said about Clenbuterol and is indeed so about a number of things.

Take veal crates. Banned in the EU but I can take you to a farm about 2km. from my home where they are in use. I have photographed them with calfs in them. I know where they can be bought.
Gin traps have been banned for years but again they are available, and so on.

I had a farmer friend, now sadly deceased, who who was forever telling me tales of the use of growth promoters in beef production in France and Spain.

If you don't understand what I am saying, well that's not my problem.

You might believe me or you might not but I have always thought that the Contador case was and is deeply flawed. I only hope that people would question things a bit more deeply.

Neil Compton wrote:

Between Peaks wrote:

Neil Compton wrote:
Don't forget that after he recovered from cancer his weight loss helped him to become a better climber. As you say Lance isn't a moron but having nearly died from cancer to then start doping and injecting yourself with stuff with risks of infection and what not is just plain crazy.

An equally valid point of view is that compared to the chemo etc that Armstrong received the EPO, transfusions, testosterone, etc was small beer. And, as it was a professionally administered regime, the risks of infection were minimal. They weren't sharing needles and the blood transfusions were of their own blood.

[/u]

Yer but what about the story of motoman.

http://road.cc/content/news/68911-lequi ... -epo-lance

carrying stuff on a motorbike dosn't sound very professional to me.

I don't see the problem - as long as the EPO was kept cool (which it was) then a motorbike is the best way to transport drugs/blood etc - less likely to get stuck in traffic jams etc. The NHS use exactly the same method to transport drugs, blood, organs etc. Also, very sensible if you want to avoid the possibility of a random check of your bus by the French Police.

Very professional if you ask me.

Les Ladbury wrote: I have also about 3-5kg drums of sodium chlorate weed killer which I purchased after the EU banned it's sale.

I'd keep very, very quiet about that if I was you Les.

Whoops, too late, GCHQ have probably read your post already

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... sers-.html

Based on the effect on my already slow average riding speed for 2 weeks after giving blood I can imagine that reversing the process (whether by transfusion or EPO) could easily provide a significant boost.

Wasn't it suggested that what Contador was actually caught doing was blood doping? Since there would be no advantage in taking a tiny (or indeed large) dose of clenbuterol during or immediately before the race, I thought the theory was that he'd transfused blood taken pre-season when clenbuterol might be used to help shed pounds and that this was further supported by the detection of a plasticizer (allegedly from a blood bag).

Between Peaks wrote:

Les Ladbury wrote: I have also about 3-5kg drums of sodium chlorate weed killer which I purchased after the EU banned it's sale.

I'd keep very, very quiet about that if I was you Les.

Whoops, too late, GCHQ have probably read your post already

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... sers-.html

I've got my defence.

I got confused between chlorate and chloride. It's only when people said that my cooking tasted more peculiar than usual that I realised my mistake

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13155 ... eview.aspx

Be interesting to see what the commission's report says too.

Part of the problem is that drugs, training, fitness, money and psychology all inter-link. Armstrong and his teams dominated the races on every aspect and their success at doping seems to have been a key part of this dominance.

When you are on a climb and someone looks you in the eye and powers off and you struggle to catch up and they do it again you will tend to give up especially if they've also got more team mates around them. Happy to watch and admire this when I believed it was due to fitness and training less so when the marginal gain has been from doping.

A bit off topic but this thread perhaps needs a lighter moment. This latest revelation is a little too close to home given my own doping history but it's probably best to confess all with the current climate...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGNEMjspf0g

One of these at the Audax should send out the correct message, or could Dr H "borrow" one from work?

http://www.auctionmasters.com/cgi-bin/m ... tegory/ALL

Light relief over, comic timing, Sean Yates "retiring"

Nowt to do with the new Sky policy, honest..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_s ... 641299.stm

Today, this looks even more laughable.

Sunday Times article, free until 5pm today

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/Mag ... c41#page-1

Double win, you don't have to give any money to Murdoch.

Ed Moss wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_s ... 641299.stm

Today, this looks even more laughable.

Speaking of which, saw a bit of Dodgeball last night where Lance appeared. Don't think that scene works quite how it did 8 years ago.

Can't recall whether I ever shared this old creation. In homage to Spike Milligan, I call it "Roberto Heras: My Part in his Downfall".

And now the UCI are being sued.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20203638





.

http://youtu.be/2cRCnwy6kAQ

The end.

Or maybe this is the end: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/05/sport ... oping.html.

Don't know how I'd feel about him owning up. On one level, it seems like the decent thing to do. On another, it would tend to reinforce my perception of his public statements down the years and his pursuit of fellow pros, journalists and others who spoke out, and make me despise him more.

George wrote:Don't know how I'd feel about him owning up. On one level, it seems like the decent thing to do. On another, it would tend to reinforce my perception of his public statements down the years and his pursuit of fellow pros, journalists and others who spoke out, and make me despise him more.

In the case of Armstrong there is only one motivation: Self interest.

Lance on Oprah??

Shame it won't be a proper interview with David Walsh.

Must say I'm flabbergasted. Can't decide which is going to make him look worse: 90 minutes of truth or another 90 minutes of lies. Oprah may be cringeworthy in the extreme, but she's no mug, Ed ... I don't think she'll shy away from difficult questions.

[In the case of Armstrong there is only one motivation: Self interest.[/quote]

Welcome to Mastermind. Specialist subject "The Bleeding Obvious"

George wrote:Must say I'm flabbergasted. Can't decide which is going to make him look worse: 90 minutes of truth or another 90 minutes of lies. Oprah may be cringeworthy in the extreme, but she's no mug, Ed ... I don't think she'll shy away from difficult questions.

It's probably to help finance all the claims for damages/legal fees he's facing. It'd be interesting to know how much he'll get for it.

Les Ladbury wrote:Welcome to Mastermind. Specialist subject "The Bleeding Obvious"

Well, Les, if Phil did appear on Mastermind to answer questions on The Bleeding Obvious, at least he'd score some points. By contrast, there are people who haven't always demonstrated a great command of The Bleeding Obvious. Such as the man who wrote:

... there are 3 facts beyond dispute.

1/ He has won the TdeF 7 times as well as the World Road Champs.
2/ As far as I know he has never tested positive for drugs.
3/ With his medical record, as he has stated, would he dabble with performance enhancing medication ?

(Posted as a mischievous but friendly dig at a man I like ... and hope can take it as well as he dishes it out.)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20964728

When did Millar become American?

George wrote:

Les Ladbury wrote:Welcome to Mastermind. Specialist subject "The Bleeding Obvious"

Well, Les, if Phil did appear on Mastermind to answer questions on The Bleeding Obvious, at least he'd score some points. By contrast, there are people who haven't always demonstrated a great command of The Bleeding Obvious. Such as the man who wrote:

... there are 3 facts beyond dispute.

1/ He has won the TdeF 7 times as well as the World Road Champs.
2/ As far as I know he has never tested positive for drugs.
3/ With his medical record, as he has stated, would he dabble with performance enhancing medication ?

(Posted as a mischievous but friendly dig at a man I like ... and hope can take it as well as he dishes it out.)

George,

I composed a lengthy reply to your posting which, on reading, I thought was rather good. On pressing "submit" it disappered into the ether never to be seen again.

I accept your comments in the spirit of constructive critisism which I think is intended as indeed my postings always are, constructive critisism.

Can I quote Oscar, Wilde that is.
"The truth is rarely pure and never simple"

Then there is of course the oft quoted Voltaire who said, slightly modified,
"I disapprove of what you say but I will defend your right to say it".

Ed Moss wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20964728

When did Millar become American?

I think that bit's supposed to be about Matt DeCanio.

That explains it.

Wonder if she ask him if he regrets calling his ex masseur a whore???

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/sport ... d=all&_r=0

This was on Cycling news, we should have night out and play it

Here's how to play. Everyone lists ways or phrases that Armstrong will use to excuse his doping, lying, and bullying. Leeway will be given for longer entries. The winner is whoever gets the most phrases that Armstrong uses. Afterward the winning list will become the official drinking game list for subsequent Armstrong interviews.

1) witch-hunt
2) singled out
3) Everyone was using EPO.
4) All the riders I competed with consider me the seven time winner.
5) I need to get back to fighting cancer.
6) I worked harder than anyone else.
7) I am coming forward for my kids.
I was getting my ass kicked by dopers when I first went to Europe.
9) I could not tell the truth because of all the cancer sufferers who believed in me.
10) vendetta


I guess the interview will be to try and rebuild Lances' career, very much doubt he will issue a full confession, why would he?

I note it's a pre-recorded interview which I suspect means Armstrong has some control over questions asked, content that gets shown etc.

Unless, of course, they're worried Paul Kimmage might get hold of an audience ticket

on the Discovery channel (how ironic) at 2:00 am Friday (repeated at 8:00 pm Friday)...

Between Peaks wrote:I note it's a pre-recorded interview which I suspect means Armstrong has some control over questions asked, content that gets shown etc.

Unless, of course, they're worried Paul Kimmage might get hold of an audience ticket

Recorded??? Probably makes it a PR exercise for the relaunch of Lance, with pre approved questions, would love to be proved wrong though.

I was just chatting with a friend in America this evening and he was telling me that the news channels are rampant with stories that Lance has come clean to Oprah and admitted that he doped but that he was not the leader and was merely one of the team.
There are bigger fish than him and he intends to bring them down.

The names being bandied about are Pat McQuad and Hein Verbruggen and even the owners of the US Postal Service team but that I assume is only speculation at this point.