Lance learns the truth...

[Alex Ravenel]

....That the dirt will always be there.

I dont know how many of yall follow the Tour, being that it is a bunch of
roadies... But apparently Lance did a bit of 'Cross action.

"ONCE's Joseba Beloki crashed just four kilometers from the finish of the
ninth stage of the Tour de France and suffered injuries serious enough to
force him out of the three-week race.
Four-time winner Lance Armstrong barely avoided going down in the same
crash as he and Beloki were in hot pursuit of eventual stage winner
Alexandre Vinokourov who had attacked on the day's final climb.
Beloki was just 40 seconds adrift of the American in the overall standings
and was leading Armstrong down the descent in the ninth stage when he
braked sharply and came crashing down onto the road.
"His (rear) tire exploded in front of me," Armstrong told French
television.
As Beloki went down, Armstrong barely managed to avoid him, was forced off
the road and took a shortcut down the grassy part of the descent to rejoin
the race.
"I decided to do a bit of cyclo cross!" said Armstrong. "I was really
scared. It was the reflexes of a survivor."

By the way, Beloki broke his leg, wrist, and elbow in the crash.


I really should cite the source that came from, but I didnt copy it down...
Sorry guys. You can read more about it on VeloNews, though, Im sure...

Still, thats pretty damn cool.

--
--------
Alex Ravenel
http://www.theravenel.net

[Bill Wheeler]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:07:34 GMT, Alex Ravenel
> wrote:

Yo Alex, two things make this post valid to ALT.MOUNTAIN-BIKE

1. It happened on a mountain.
2. Lance did some off-roading.

Please keep all other Roadie Crap out of this NG ;-)

Lance is DA MAN!

Seeing Beloki crash was not fun. I wouldn't wish that type of crash
on anyone. Hope he rides again.

Peace,
Bill
The mind serves properly as a window glass rather
than as a reflector, that is, the mind should give
an immediate view instead of an interpretation of the world.
:-]

[AD.]

Alex Ravenel wrote:

> ...That the dirt will always be there.
>
> I dont know how many of yall follow the Tour, being that it is a bunch of
> roadies... But apparently Lance did a bit of 'Cross action.

Damn freeriders! Stick to the trail!

There, had to say it ;)

Cheers
Anton

[Taywood]

"AD." > wrote in message
...
> Alex Ravenel wrote:
> > ...That the dirt will always be there.
> > I dont know how many of yall follow the Tour, being that it is a
bunch of
> > roadies... But apparently Lance did a bit of 'Cross action.
> Damn freeriders! Stick to the trail!
> There, had to say it ;)

Hot temperature, melting road surface and hot rims while braking
on the descent are thought to be the reasons for Beloki's tyre
coming off.

PS Lance peeled off, rode down the rough, missed the hairpin turn
and re joined the road behind the bunch who had been behind him.
In XC ski races competitors are DQ'd for not covering the same
trail and the same distance as the others.

[Bob M]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 22:28:54 +0100, Taywood > wrote:

>
> "AD." > wrote in message
> ...
>> Alex Ravenel wrote:
>> > ...That the dirt will always be there.
>> > I dont know how many of yall follow the Tour, being that it is a
> bunch of
>> > roadies... But apparently Lance did a bit of 'Cross action.
>> Damn freeriders! Stick to the trail!
>> There, had to say it ;)
>
> Hot temperature, melting road surface and hot rims while braking
> on the descent are thought to be the reasons for Beloki's tyre
> coming off.
>
> PS Lance peeled off, rode down the rough, missed the hairpin turn
> and re joined the road behind the bunch who had been behind him.
> In XC ski races competitors are DQ'd for not covering the same
> trail and the same distance as the others.
>
>
>

He could have been disqualified, but they ruled that he didn't cover the
distance because he was trying to get ahead -- it's basically the only
thing he could do.

--
Bob M in CT
Remove 'x.' to reply

[Jon Bond]

"Taywood" > wrote in message
...
>
> "AD." > wrote in message
> ...
> > Alex Ravenel wrote:
> > > ...That the dirt will always be there.
> > > I dont know how many of yall follow the Tour, being that it is a
> bunch of
> > > roadies... But apparently Lance did a bit of 'Cross action.
> > Damn freeriders! Stick to the trail!
> > There, had to say it ;)
>
> Hot temperature, melting road surface and hot rims while braking
> on the descent are thought to be the reasons for Beloki's tyre
> coming off.
>
> PS Lance peeled off, rode down the rough, missed the hairpin turn
> and re joined the road behind the bunch who had been behind him.
> In XC ski races competitors are DQ'd for not covering the same
> trail and the same distance as the others.

You also usually don't get protesters sitting on the trail in XC skiing.
They usually get too cold.

He could have been penalized, but he started in front of the pack, made the
only decision he could have, and ended up behind the pack. Hamilton said he
was going to try to push him back to their speed, but realized that he stuck
out his right arm - the one with the broken collarbone. Thats why he just
kinda tapped him on the shoulder.

Jon Bond

[Mark Hickey]

"Jon Bond" > wrote:

>He could have been penalized, but he started in front of the pack, made the
>only decision he could have, and ended up behind the pack. Hamilton said he
>was going to try to push him back to their speed, but realized that he stuck
>out his right arm - the one with the broken collarbone. Thats why he just
>kinda tapped him on the shoulder.

Oh now THAT would have made the entire scene complete - another of the
top 10 going out with a shattered collarbone due to pushing Lance up
to speed... eek!

I agree that no one was going to lodge a protest against Lance for
that little cyclocross excursion - in fact, I'd like to see them make
it part of the course in future years. Heh.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[bomba]

Taywood wrote:

> PS Lance peeled off, rode down the rough, missed the hairpin turn
> and re joined the road behind the bunch who had been behind him.
> In XC ski races competitors are DQ'd for not covering the same
> trail and the same distance as the others.

The rules state that a rider is not allowed to deliberately run off
course in attempt to improve his position. Seeing as he neither did it
deliberately or was it to his advantage, no action was taken.

--
a.m-b FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/ambfaq.htm

a.bmx FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/bmx_faq.htm

[B a r r y B u r k e J r .]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 22:28:54 +0100, "Taywood" >
wrote:

>PS Lance peeled off, rode down the rough, missed the hairpin turn
>and re joined the road behind the bunch who had been behind him.
>In XC ski races competitors are DQ'd for not covering the same
>trail and the same distance as the others.
>

But in many forms of auto racing, a competitor is allowed to cut the
course, as long as no time or positions are gained. Some sanctioning
bodies state that the cut must be made to avoid a crash, while others
don't.

Since Lance lost positions and time, and was avoiding an accident, why
would cut be such a bad thing?

Barry

[Ed Y.]

Alex Ravenel wrote in message
> I dont know how many of yall follow the Tour, being that it is a bunch of
> roadies... But apparently Lance did a bit of 'Cross action.

Here it is on video:
http://eurosport.com/home/pages/V3/L0/multimedia_Lng0.shtml
Search for "Tour de France: Stage 9 highlights"

[Raptor]

Paladin wrote:
>
> Unlike most sports champions, Lance is a great role model, and when
> you consider what he's overcome, and how he's done it, and where's he
> gotten, even a hero. You won't hear that kinda talk from me about any
> other GR's, but Lance is the true exception to the rule.
>
> Paladin

But he ain't no saint. He's an actual, everyday dude from a poor family
who made his own way. This limits his utility as a role model for
(some) children.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we could to protect
our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security."
--Microsoft VP in charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.

[Raptor]

Sorni wrote:
> "Raptor" > wrote in message ...
>
>>Paladin wrote:
>>
>>>Unlike most sports champions, Lance is a great role model, and when
>>>you consider what he's overcome, and how he's done it, and where's he
>>>gotten, even a hero. You won't hear that kinda talk from me about any
>>>other GR's, but Lance is the true exception to the rule.
>>>
>>>Paladin
>>
>>But he ain't no saint. He's an actual, everyday dude from a poor family
>>who made his own way. This limits his utility as a role model for
>>(some) children.
>
>
> Um, how?
>
> While I agree L.A.'s hardly perfect -- I'm sure he can be arrogant,
> self-centered, demanding, etc. -- his story and achievements are what serve
> as inspirations.
>
> I don't see how being "an everyday dude from a poor family who made his own
> way" limits his "utility as a role model". Quite the opposite, one would
> think. (And hope.)
>
> Just trying to get your point.
>
> Bill

A hint: I live in Utah, and have for many years.

I probably should have mentioned his potty mouth (not too bad by most
standards) and agnosticism.

I for one respect the hell out of the guy.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we could to protect
our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security."
--Microsoft VP in charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.

[Craig Brossman]

Raptor wrote:

> Sorni wrote:
>
>> "Raptor" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Paladin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Unlike most sports champions, Lance is a great role model, and when
>>>> you consider what he's overcome, and how he's done it, and where's he
>>>> gotten, even a hero. You won't hear that kinda talk from me about any
>>>> other GR's, but Lance is the true exception to the rule.
>>>>
>>>> Paladin
>>>
>>>
>>> But he ain't no saint. He's an actual, everyday dude from a poor family
>>> who made his own way. This limits his utility as a role model for
>>> (some) children.
>>
>>
>>
>> Um, how?
>>
>> While I agree L.A.'s hardly perfect -- I'm sure he can be arrogant,
>> self-centered, demanding, etc. -- his story and achievements are what
>> serve
>> as inspirations.
>>
>> I don't see how being "an everyday dude from a poor family who made
>> his own
>> way" limits his "utility as a role model". Quite the opposite, one would
>> think. (And hope.)
>>
>> Just trying to get your point.
>>
>> Bill
>
>
> A hint: I live in Utah, and have for many years.
>
> I probably should have mentioned his potty mouth (not too bad by most
> standards) and agnosticism.
>
> I for one respect the hell out of the guy.
>
You're scaring me here. Why is it he has limited "utility as a role
model"? Because you have heard him swear and he may not believe in God.
I suppose one decides on role models based on their own personal
beliefs. I for one would like my kids to group up with a similar work
ethic and appreciation for those around him who helped him get there.
Listening to Mr. Armstrong's interviews on OLN recently, I really
appreciate his attitude. He comes across as one who never blames others
for his problems, understands he has good and bad days, realizes that
although this is important, it is just a game.
These are traits I want my childern to have and would like to continue
to develope in myself. Because he may have beliefs that don't match mine
should be of little importance, and in fact, should also be appreciated
as a good role model, one who believes what they believe indpendent of
those around him.
Sorry Mr. Raptor, I just don't agree with you.

--
Craig Brossman, Durango Colorado
(remove ".nospam" to reply)

[Sorni]

"Craig Brossman" > wrote in message
...
> Raptor wrote:
>
> > Sorni wrote:
> >
> >> "Raptor" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >>> Paladin wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Unlike most sports champions, Lance is a great role model, and when
> >>>> you consider what he's overcome, and how he's done it, and where's he
> >>>> gotten, even a hero. You won't hear that kinda talk from me about
any
> >>>> other GR's, but Lance is the true exception to the rule.
> >>>>
> >>>> Paladin
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> But he ain't no saint. He's an actual, everyday dude from a poor
family
> >>> who made his own way. This limits his utility as a role model for
> >>> (some) children.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Um, how?
> >>
> >> While I agree L.A.'s hardly perfect -- I'm sure he can be arrogant,
> >> self-centered, demanding, etc. -- his story and achievements are what
> >> serve
> >> as inspirations.
> >>
> >> I don't see how being "an everyday dude from a poor family who made
> >> his own
> >> way" limits his "utility as a role model". Quite the opposite, one
would
> >> think. (And hope.)
> >>
> >> Just trying to get your point.
> >>
> >> Bill
> >
> >
> > A hint: I live in Utah, and have for many years.
> >
> > I probably should have mentioned his potty mouth (not too bad by most
> > standards) and agnosticism.
> >
> > I for one respect the hell out of the guy.
> >
> You're scaring me here. Why is it he has limited "utility as a role
> model"? Because you have heard him swear and he may not believe in God.
> I suppose one decides on role models based on their own personal
> beliefs. I for one would like my kids to group up with a similar work
> ethic and appreciation for those around him who helped him get there.
> Listening to Mr. Armstrong's interviews on OLN recently, I really
> appreciate his attitude. He comes across as one who never blames others
> for his problems, understands he has good and bad days, realizes that
> although this is important, it is just a game.
> These are traits I want my childern to have and would like to continue
> to develope in myself. Because he may have beliefs that don't match mine
> should be of little importance, and in fact, should also be appreciated
> as a good role model, one who believes what they believe indpendent of
> those around him.
> Sorry Mr. Raptor, I just don't agree with you.

Not to speak for the Rapstor, Craig, but I think he was commenting/slagging
on UTAH-ians' holier-than-Lance attitudes, not his own. I didn't get it
first time, either.

Bill "oops, I'm not doing this any more" S.

[Craig Brossman]

Sorni wrote:
> "Craig Brossman" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Raptor wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Sorni wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Raptor" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Paladin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Unlike most sports champions, Lance is a great role model, and when
>>>>>>you consider what he's overcome, and how he's done it, and where's he
>>>>>>gotten, even a hero. You won't hear that kinda talk from me about
>
> any
>
>>>>>>other GR's, but Lance is the true exception to the rule.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Paladin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>But he ain't no saint. He's an actual, everyday dude from a poor
>
> family
>
>>>>>who made his own way. This limits his utility as a role model for
>>>>>(some) children.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Um, how?
>>>>
>>>>While I agree L.A.'s hardly perfect -- I'm sure he can be arrogant,
>>>>self-centered, demanding, etc. -- his story and achievements are what
>>>>serve
>>>>as inspirations.
>>>>
>>>>I don't see how being "an everyday dude from a poor family who made
>>>>his own
>>>>way" limits his "utility as a role model". Quite the opposite, one
>
> would
>
>>>>think. (And hope.)
>>>>
>>>>Just trying to get your point.
>>>>
>>>>Bill
>>>
>>>
>>>A hint: I live in Utah, and have for many years.
>>>
>>>I probably should have mentioned his potty mouth (not too bad by most
>>>standards) and agnosticism.
>>>
>>>I for one respect the hell out of the guy.
>>>
>>
>>You're scaring me here. Why is it he has limited "utility as a role
>>model"? Because you have heard him swear and he may not believe in God.
>>I suppose one decides on role models based on their own personal
>>beliefs. I for one would like my kids to group up with a similar work
>>ethic and appreciation for those around him who helped him get there.
>>Listening to Mr. Armstrong's interviews on OLN recently, I really
>>appreciate his attitude. He comes across as one who never blames others
>>for his problems, understands he has good and bad days, realizes that
>>although this is important, it is just a game.
>>These are traits I want my childern to have and would like to continue
>>to develope in myself. Because he may have beliefs that don't match mine
>>should be of little importance, and in fact, should also be appreciated
>>as a good role model, one who believes what they believe indpendent of
>>those around him.
>>Sorry Mr. Raptor, I just don't agree with you.
>
>
> Not to speak for the Rapstor, Craig, but I think he was commenting/slagging
> on UTAH-ians' holier-than-Lance attitudes, not his own. I didn't get it
> first time, either.
>
> Bill "oops, I'm not doing this any more" S.
>
>
Thanks Mr. Bill.
Perhaps you are correct and I have missed the point. Mr. Raptor "seems"
to make the statement that "it limits his utility ...", I just want to
point out that I think Mr. Armstrong has sufficient utility as a role
model, perhaps not in every area, but then again a hammer has utility
but I never use it to cook.
If I took it all wrong Mr. Raptor, sorry, otherwise I'm not.

--
Craig Brossman, Durango Colorado
(remove ".nospam" to reply)

[Raptor]

Craig Brossman wrote:
> Raptor wrote:
>
>> Sorni wrote:
>>
>>> "Raptor" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Paladin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Unlike most sports champions, Lance is a great role model, and when
>>>>> you consider what he's overcome, and how he's done it, and where's he
>>>>> gotten, even a hero. You won't hear that kinda talk from me about any
>>>>> other GR's, but Lance is the true exception to the rule.
>>>>>
>>>>> Paladin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But he ain't no saint. He's an actual, everyday dude from a poor
>>>> family
>>>> who made his own way. This limits his utility as a role model for
>>>> (some) children.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Um, how?
>>>
>>> While I agree L.A.'s hardly perfect -- I'm sure he can be arrogant,
>>> self-centered, demanding, etc. -- his story and achievements are what
>>> serve
>>> as inspirations.
>>>
>>> I don't see how being "an everyday dude from a poor family who made
>>> his own
>>> way" limits his "utility as a role model". Quite the opposite, one
>>> would
>>> think. (And hope.)
>>>
>>> Just trying to get your point.
>>>
>>> Bill
>>
>>
>>
>> A hint: I live in Utah, and have for many years.
>>
>> I probably should have mentioned his potty mouth (not too bad by most
>> standards) and agnosticism.
>>
>> I for one respect the hell out of the guy.
>>
> You're scaring me here. Why is it he has limited "utility as a role
> model"? Because you have heard him swear and he may not believe in God.
> I suppose one decides on role models based on their own personal
> beliefs. I for one would like my kids to group up with a similar work
> ethic and appreciation for those around him who helped him get there.
> Listening to Mr. Armstrong's interviews on OLN recently, I really
> appreciate his attitude. He comes across as one who never blames others
> for his problems, understands he has good and bad days, realizes that
> although this is important, it is just a game.

When/if I have kids, I'll ask them to work and live to the standards set
by LANCE Armstrong and John Stockton, plus any non-sports heroes I can
think of (certain firefighters, doctors, the usual).

> These are traits I want my childern to have and would like to continue
> to develope in myself. Because he may have beliefs that don't match mine
> should be of little importance, and in fact, should also be appreciated
> as a good role model, one who believes what they believe indpendent of
> those around him.
> Sorry Mr. Raptor, I just don't agree with you.

I know I'm not communicating it all that clearly. I meant that many
don't consider LANCE to be a useful role model simply because he's a
real guy. I don't agree with them.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we could to protect
our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security."
--Microsoft VP in charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.

[Paladin]

bomba > wrote in message >...
> Paladin wrote:
>
> > Unlike most sports champions, Lance is a great role model, and when
> > you consider what he's overcome, and how he's done it, and where's he
> > gotten, even a hero. You won't hear that kinda talk from me about any
> > other GR's, but Lance is the true exception to the rule.
>
> You may one day come to eat those words...

Sure, no doubt it's possible, as it happens fairly regularly, but is
there any aspect of the statement in particular you're focusing on?
More roadies are good role models? Lance isn't a good one? ??

Paladin

[Super Slinky]

bomba said...

> I think one has to accept that the higher echelons of road cycling are
> deeply competitive and it pays to have a healthy scepticism when it
> comes to their performance. I'm not going to make any unfounded claims,
> but history has shown that 'Le Tour' is rife with those capitalising on
> performance enhancement.

I agree with your skepticism, but let's not forget that only a tiny
amount of time over may hours of racing separates the top riders.
Therefore if we are going to condemn one, we have to condemn them all.
Lance has admitted to visiting at least one doctor who was known to
dispense performance enhancing drugs, but if he does take these drugs he
has managed to keep it a tidy secret. I have to wonder if such a secret
could be kept over the years without a few particulars leaking out.

Another thing to consider is that Lance's endurance may not be his only
advantage. Let's not forget the vast resources of his sponsors. You
can't buy Lance's bike at any bike dealer at any price. Some Europeans
like to think that Americans are a bunch of illiterate morons, but the
truth is that no other single country has such a huge reservoir of
technical and manufacturing expertise, and Lance gets to tap into that.

> I forget the name of the doctor, but a specialist called as witness
> during the Festina trial testified that it was physically impossible for
> a human to have climbed the Alpe d'Huez in 2000(?) in the time that
> Armstrong did, without 'help'. Just worth bearing in mind.

I'm surprised that any scientist would make such a ridiculous statement.
It is completely unprovable, therefore it is at best an opinion, not a
fact. If a doctor actually said this, then it only reveals his personal
bias, and it says a lot more about this doctor than it does about Lance
Armstrong.

[bomba]

Super Slinky wrote:

>>I think one has to accept that the higher echelons of road cycling are
>>deeply competitive and it pays to have a healthy scepticism when it
>>comes to their performance. I'm not going to make any unfounded claims,
>>but history has shown that 'Le Tour' is rife with those capitalising on
>>performance enhancement.
>
>
> I agree with your skepticism, but let's not forget that only a tiny
> amount of time over may hours of racing separates the top riders.
> Therefore if we are going to condemn one, we have to condemn them all.

My personal opinion is that they are competing on pretty much a level
playing field, albeit a field on a different plain to everyone else.

> Lance has admitted to visiting at least one doctor who was known to
> dispense performance enhancing drugs, but if he does take these drugs he
> has managed to keep it a tidy secret. I have to wonder if such a secret
> could be kept over the years without a few particulars leaking out.

I think most want to prevent a repeat of the Festina affair, and if, as
I suspect, everyone is in on it, then spilling the beans on one could
bring the whole house of cards crashing down.

> Another thing to consider is that Lance's endurance may not be his only
> advantage. Let's not forget the vast resources of his sponsors. You
> can't buy Lance's bike at any bike dealer at any price. Some Europeans
> like to think that Americans are a bunch of illiterate morons,

....not saying a thing... :)

but the
> truth is that no other single country has such a huge reservoir of
> technical and manufacturing expertise, and Lance gets to tap into that.

I think the quality of his bike is totally irrelevant.

>>I forget the name of the doctor, but a specialist called as witness
>>during the Festina trial testified that it was physically impossible for
>>a human to have climbed the Alpe d'Huez in 2000(?) in the time that
>>Armstrong did, without 'help'. Just worth bearing in mind.
>
>
> I'm surprised that any scientist would make such a ridiculous statement.
> It is completely unprovable, therefore it is at best an opinion, not a
> fact.

I don't know under which criteria the claim was made, but I'm sure there
was sufficient basis for his opinion.

If a doctor actually said this, then it only reveals his personal
> bias, and it says a lot more about this doctor than it does about Lance
> Armstrong.

As I say, I don't know the ins and outs of the statement, but you don't
get to be an expert witness in a trial of that magnitude without some
sort of credence.

[Bob M]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 13:43:32 +0200, bomba > wrote:

> Super Slinky wrote:
>
>>> I think one has to accept that the higher echelons of road cycling are
>>> deeply competitive and it pays to have a healthy scepticism when it
>>> comes to their performance. I'm not going to make any unfounded
>>> claims, but history has shown that 'Le Tour' is rife with those
>>> capitalising on performance enhancement.
>>
>>
>> I agree with your skepticism, but let's not forget that only a tiny
>> amount of time over may hours of racing separates the top riders.
>> Therefore if we are going to condemn one, we have to condemn them all.
>
> My personal opinion is that they are competing on pretty much a level
> playing field, albeit a field on a different plain to everyone else.
>
>> Lance has admitted to visiting at least one doctor who was known to
>> dispense performance enhancing drugs, but if he does take these drugs he
>> has managed to keep it a tidy secret. I have to wonder if such a secret
>> could be kept over the years without a few particulars leaking out.
>
> I think most want to prevent a repeat of the Festina affair, and if, as I
> suspect, everyone is in on it, then spilling the beans on one could bring
> the whole house of cards crashing down.
>
>> Another thing to consider is that Lance's endurance may not be his only
>> advantage. Let's not forget the vast resources of his sponsors. You
>> can't buy Lance's bike at any bike dealer at any price. Some Europeans
>> like to think that Americans are a bunch of illiterate morons,
>
> ...not saying a thing... :)
>
> but the
>> truth is that no other single country has such a huge reservoir of
>> technical and manufacturing expertise, and Lance gets to tap into that.
>
> I think the quality of his bike is totally irrelevant.
>
>>> I forget the name of the doctor, but a specialist called as witness
>>> during the Festina trial testified that it was physically impossible
>>> for a human to have climbed the Alpe d'Huez in 2000(?) in the time that
>>> Armstrong did, without 'help'. Just worth bearing in mind.
>>
>>
>> I'm surprised that any scientist would make such a ridiculous statement.
>> It is completely unprovable, therefore it is at best an opinion, not a
>> fact.
>
> I don't know under which criteria the claim was made, but I'm sure there
> was sufficient basis for his opinion.
>
> If a doctor actually said this, then it only reveals his personal
>> bias, and it says a lot more about this doctor than it does about Lance
>> Armstrong.
>
> As I say, I don't know the ins and outs of the statement, but you don't
> get to be an expert witness in a trial of that magnitude without some
> sort of credence.
>
>

You just call yourself an expert (at least in the US). That's all it takes
to be an expert in a trial.

--
Bob M in CT
Remove 'x.' to reply

[Craig Brossman]

bomba wrote:

> Paladin wrote:
>
>>> You may one day come to eat those words...
>>
>>
>>
>> Sure, no doubt it's possible, as it happens fairly regularly, but is
>> there any aspect of the statement in particular you're focusing on?
>> More roadies are good role models? Lance isn't a good one? ??
>
>
> I think one has to accept that the higher echelons of road cycling are
> deeply competitive and it pays to have a healthy scepticism when it
> comes to their performance. I'm not going to make any unfounded claims,
> but history has shown that 'Le Tour' is rife with those capitalising on
> performance enhancement.
>
> I forget the name of the doctor, but a specialist called as witness
> during the Festina trial testified that it was physically impossible for
> a human to have climbed the Alpe d'Huez in 2000(?) in the time that
> Armstrong did, without 'help'. Just worth bearing in mind.
>
So Mr. Armstrong is not a good model because he (and the rest of the
sport) may be using performance enhancement drugs not discovered by the
officals of the TdF (or the Giro or any other race most participate in).
Is that the claim?
How about Mr. Ullrich, who has been found to use drugs. Are you sure you
are not getting Mr. Ullrich confused with Mr. Armstrong? (BTW, I'm not
sure I consider Mr. Ullrich a bad role model, I tend to agree with Mr.
Liggett states that Jan just went through "typical" growing pains, or
something like that.)

--
Craig Brossman, Durango Colorado
(remove ".nospam" to reply)

[Paladin]

bomba > wrote in message >...
> Paladin wrote:
>
> >>You may one day come to eat those words...
> >
> >
> > Sure, no doubt it's possible, as it happens fairly regularly, but is
> > there any aspect of the statement in particular you're focusing on?
> > More roadies are good role models? Lance isn't a good one? ??
>
> I think one has to accept that the higher echelons of road cycling are
> deeply competitive and it pays to have a healthy scepticism when it
> comes to their performance. I'm not going to make any unfounded claims,
> but history has shown that 'Le Tour' is rife with those capitalising on
> performance enhancement.
>
> I forget the name of the doctor, but a specialist called as witness
> during the Festina trial testified that it was physically impossible for
> a human to have climbed the Alpe d'Huez in 2000(?) in the time that
> Armstrong did, without 'help'. Just worth bearing in mind.


There are always those claiming something can't be done getting passed
by those actually doing it. The 4 minute mile. Man on the moon.

Paladin

[Raptor]

bomba wrote:
> Paladin wrote:
>
>>> You may one day come to eat those words...
>>
>>
>>
>> Sure, no doubt it's possible, as it happens fairly regularly, but is
>> there any aspect of the statement in particular you're focusing on?
>> More roadies are good role models? Lance isn't a good one? ??
>
>
> I think one has to accept that the higher echelons of road cycling are
> deeply competitive and it pays to have a healthy scepticism when it
> comes to their performance. I'm not going to make any unfounded claims,
> but history has shown that 'Le Tour' is rife with those capitalising on
> performance enhancement.

Since the Festina affair in 1998(?), doping has been a huge taboo in the
Tour de France. I almost said "pro cycling," but I'm not so sure about
other venues.

Last year, Raimondas Rumsas came out of nowhere to take second, and
suspicious were raised high. His wife was jailed for many months after
the Tour because she was caught with a ton of doping material, but all
blood tests of Rumsas were clean. AFAIK, she's still in jail.
Recently, Rumsas was caught with tainted blood and is currently
suspended. I don't know if he has been stripped of his second place.

The Tour de France has rigorous doping controls in place, but it's the
usual race between doping and anti-doping that keeps the question open
as to how many of the top riders are getting chemical or biological help.

Many top pros live in Spain, and Italy is rumored to have lots of
doped-up riders and racers in the lower ranks. It's speculated that
Spain doesn't do as much doping control over athletes, in or outside of
active competition, and that's why lots of pros live there.

OTOH, LANCE was kicking adult triathlete butt when he was a teenager, so
it's clear that he has tremendous natural gifts.

Rumsas is the only top cyclist who's been caught in recent years that I
recall, though I'm sure there have been a couple/few others.

> I forget the name of the doctor, but a specialist called as witness
> during the Festina trial testified that it was physically impossible for
> a human to have climbed the Alpe d'Huez in 2000(?) in the time that
> Armstrong did, without 'help'. Just worth bearing in mind.

Dr. Michel Ferrarri, most likely. LANCE suffered a minor media scandal
a couple years ago because he's liked with Ferrarri. The fact that
Ferrarri is still LANCE's real coach/medical adviser seems to be
somewhat of an open secret. But that doesn't mean he's feeding LANCE
anything more than medical and performance-enhancing expertise.

Regarding the equipment issue, last year LANCE was fond of pointing out
that he won on stock Trek bikes. Apparently that's changed this year.
Cannondale provides Saeco their rides. A week or so ago, they
publicized pictures of their team bikes with small weights glued to them
to bring them above the lower weight limit. The riders wore "protest"
jerseys that read, "Legalize my Cannondale," and all got fined for it.
Presumably, the sponsor took care of the fines.

But the road bikes they ride are pretty common. Yes, most pros have
custom frames, but they're otherwise off-the-shelf. The time trial
bikes are the real expensive high-tech ones, but they're only used in 3
stages.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we could to protect
our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security."
--Microsoft VP in charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.

[bomba]

Bob M wrote:

>> As I say, I don't know the ins and outs of the statement, but you
>> don't get to be an expert witness in a trial of that magnitude without
>> some sort of credence.
>>
>>
>
> You just call yourself an expert (at least in the US). That's all it
> takes to be an expert in a trial.

Well, the trial was high profile in France...

[bomba]

Craig Brossman wrote:

> So Mr. Armstrong is not a good model because he (and the rest of the
> sport) may be using performance enhancement drugs not discovered by the
> officals of the TdF (or the Giro or any other race most participate in).
> Is that the claim?

No, my original claim was that one day there's a possibility that Lance
could be caught using drugs. At that point, many will have to consider
whether he still constitutes a good role model.

> How about Mr. Ullrich, who has been found to use drugs. Are you sure you
> are not getting Mr. Ullrich confused with Mr. Armstrong? (BTW, I'm not
> sure I consider Mr. Ullrich a bad role model, I tend to agree with Mr.
> Liggett states that Jan just went through "typical" growing pains, or
> something like that.)

I'm not getting confused at all - in fact, you're helping me demonstrate
my point. Consider that along with Ullrich, last year's 3rd place,
Rumsas has also been banned, the current polka dot jersey holder,
Virenque, was banned along with the rest of the Festina team, then
there's Pantani, Del Olmo and so on. I think everyone's on it, and
those that are caught out are merely 'unlucky'. If Lance was unlucky
one day, do you think he would still be considered as a positive role model?

[bomba]

Super Slinky wrote:

>>I think most want to prevent a repeat of the Festina affair, and if, as
>>I suspect, everyone is in on it, then spilling the beans on one could
>>bring the whole house of cards crashing down.
>
>
> Maybe, but considering Lance's domination of the Tour, one would think
> that there would be plenty of people willing to blow the whistle on him
> if there was any dirty laundry lying around.

I think that's naive. There are probably less than 10 people that have
any positive evidence on any one cyclist. In the case of Armstrong,
you're looking at his fellow team mates, his manager, doctor and,
bearing in mind the case of Rumsas, possibly his wife. Now, why would
any of those blow the whistle? The closest you'd get is a domestique in
a minor team making allegations that 'everybody's doing it', at which
point the entire sport closes ranks and labels the cyclist a liar. He
makes a bit of cash from selling his story, but his team (including his
friends) are indicted and he never works in the industry again.

I think it's one of those things that's probably generally accepted
within Tour circles, but never referred to.

>>I think the quality of his bike is totally irrelevant.
>
>
> I think that his one of a kind, wind tunnel tested parts could easily
> account for the tiny advantage he has over the other riders if they
> don't have access to similar engineering muscle.

********. You think Trek is the only team that has access to a wind
tunnel? You think Trek has more financial clout than Giant? The
differences at that level between equipment is minimal to say the least.

Mind you, they calculated that Lemond's use of an aero helmet in the
final stage of the '89 tour, as opposed to Fignon's pony tail, caused
enough of an aerodynamic difference to decide the winner.

>>As I say, I don't know the ins and outs of the statement, but you don't
>>get to be an expert witness in a trial of that magnitude without some
>>sort of credence.
>
>
> But besides being ridiculous at face value, in a scientific sense the
> statement is unprovable, and therefore only so much hot air. Scientific
> opinions based on thorough and careful research come and go faster than
> teenaged fashions. Such a sweeping generality could never even begin to
> be researched and it means nothing except that one scientist got paid to
> shoot his mouth off. Who knows, maybe Lance is a genetic freak who has
> an extra muscle in his ass, or maybe he was bitten by a radioactive
> spider. Yes, I'm being silly, but the point is that we are all different
> and any so-called scientist who makes such an asinine statement is not
> an unbiased source of information.

I agree to a certain point. World records are broken all the time, but
there must be some evidence to justify his claim. Anyway, I'm just
repeating the story, not trying to scientifically justify it. It was
accepted as valid evidence in the trial and although it doesn't act as
definitive proof of drug abuse by Armstrong, it's worth bearing in mind.

[bomba]

Dave W wrote:

>>I don't know under which criteria the claim was made, but I'm sure there
>>was sufficient basis for his opinion.
>
>
> *cough cough BULL**** cough*
>
>>If a doctor actually said this, then it only reveals his personal
>>
>>>bias, and it says a lot more about this doctor than it does about Lance
>>>Armstrong.
>>
>>As I say, I don't know the ins and outs of the statement, but you don't
>>get to be an expert witness in a trial of that magnitude without some
>>sort of credence.
>
>
> **cough cough BULL**** cough cough**

Yep, sorry, I can't back it up. I read it in the paper at the time of
the trial.

[bomba]

Raptor wrote:

> Last year, Raimondas Rumsas came out of nowhere to take second, and
> suspicious were raised high. His wife was jailed for many months after
> the Tour because she was caught with a ton of doping material, but all
> blood tests of Rumsas were clean. AFAIK, she's still in jail. Recently,
> Rumsas was caught with tainted blood and is currently suspended. I
> don't know if he has been stripped of his second place.

No, he won't be stripped of his second place.

> OTOH, LANCE was kicking adult triathlete butt when he was a teenager, so
> it's clear that he has tremendous natural gifts.

I'm not saying you can reach the top just by being drugged up.

> Rumsas is the only top cyclist who's been caught in recent years that I
> recall, though I'm sure there have been a couple/few others.

Pfft... Pantani, Del Olmo, Virenque, Ullrich, Rumsas...

[Mark Hickey]

bomba > wrote:

>Craig Brossman wrote:
>
>> So Mr. Armstrong is not a good model because he (and the rest of the
>> sport) may be using performance enhancement drugs not discovered by the
>> officals of the TdF (or the Giro or any other race most participate in).
>> Is that the claim?
>
>No, my original claim was that one day there's a possibility that Lance
>could be caught using drugs. At that point, many will have to consider
>whether he still constitutes a good role model.

Some day you may be caught molesting a child. At that point, many
will have to consider whether you still constitute a good role model.

You might ask how I could write something like that with absolutely no
proof that you molest children. Of couse, I could also ask how you
could write what you did even though the intense scrutiny Lance has
been under (including many, many blood, unine and hair tests) have
come up 100% negative. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

I take that back - in one of the tours (2000?) he tested positive for
a miniscule trace of some banned substance. The French press (and
some miscreants on r.b.r.) made much hay about this, even though it
was clear that the "problem" was that a saddle sore cream he had used
contained the substance and some vanishingly small amount had gotten
into his blood stream.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Raptor]

bomba wrote:
> Raptor wrote:
>> Rumsas is the only top cyclist who's been caught in recent years that
>> I recall, though I'm sure there have been a couple/few others.
>
>
> Pfft... Pantani, Del Olmo, Virenque, Ullrich, Rumsas...

Since 1988.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we could to protect
our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security."
--Microsoft VP in charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.

[bomba]

Mark Hickey wrote:

>>No, my original claim was that one day there's a possibility that Lance
>>could be caught using drugs. At that point, many will have to consider
>>whether he still constitutes a good role model.
>
>
> Some day you may be caught molesting a child. At that point, many
> will have to consider whether you still constitute a good role model.

A little harsh, but, if we want to take your analogy and run with it, if
I was consistently hanging out with paedophiles and child abusers, the
finger of suspicion would certainly be raised at some point.

And of course, you'd have to find somebody who found me a good role
model in the first place :)

> You might ask how I could write something like that with absolutely no
> proof that you molest children. Of couse, I could also ask how you
> could write what you did even though the intense scrutiny Lance has
> been under (including many, many blood, unine and hair tests) have
> come up 100% negative. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

I can write that based on the large amount of evidence and hearsay of
rampant drug abuse in professional cycling. The fact that advances in
performance-enhancing practices are always one step ahead of detection
(and as someone pointed out, doesn't the USPS have the largest resources
at their disposal?) The fact that almost all those who have been caught
have alluded to the widespread drugs culture, and even those who haven't
and no longer compete also allude to it. The fact that anyone that
follows the Tour with any interest generally accepts that drug abuse is
widespread. Then of course, there was the seizure by French police of
medical refuse, dumped suspiciously by the USPS in 2000, containing
hypodermics and bandages, and the admission by Armstrong that he worked
with Dr Ferrari who is known to have promoted the use of EPO.

I realise that it's all circumstantial, but I think there's certainly
the possibility that Armstrong could one day be caught in a drugs scandal.

--
a.m-b FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/ambfaq.htm

a.bmx FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/bmx_faq.htm

[bomba]

Raptor wrote:

>>> Rumsas is the only top cyclist who's been caught in recent years that
>>> I recall, though I'm sure there have been a couple/few others.
>>
>>
>>
>> Pfft... Pantani, Del Olmo, Virenque, Ullrich, Rumsas...
>
>
> Since 1988.

Erm, all of those are in the last 5 years. If you want to go back to
'88, you can throw in Abdujaparov, Bugno, Chiapucci, Brochard, Zulle,
Delgado, Theunisse, etc, etc...

--
a.m-b FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/ambfaq.htm

a.bmx FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/bmx_faq.htm

[Mark Hickey]

bomba > wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>>>No, my original claim was that one day there's a possibility that Lance
>>>could be caught using drugs. At that point, many will have to consider
>>>whether he still constitutes a good role model.
>>
>> Some day you may be caught molesting a child. At that point, many
>> will have to consider whether you still constitute a good role model.
>
>A little harsh, but, if we want to take your analogy and run with it, if
>I was consistently hanging out with paedophiles and child abusers, the
>finger of suspicion would certainly be raised at some point.

OK, let's pretend you are a teacher or a priest (oi vey!). Now we can
cast suspicion with impunity - even though you have no history of any
problems... (in fact, this is very much the case, particularly for
priests lately). And it's sad, because obviously the vast majority
don't have anything to hide.

>And of course, you'd have to find somebody who found me a good role
>model in the first place :)

Heh... good point!

>> You might ask how I could write something like that with absolutely no
>> proof that you molest children. Of couse, I could also ask how you
>> could write what you did even though the intense scrutiny Lance has
>> been under (including many, many blood, unine and hair tests) have
>> come up 100% negative. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
>
>I can write that based on the large amount of evidence and hearsay of
>rampant drug abuse in professional cycling. The fact that advances in
>performance-enhancing practices are always one step ahead of detection
>(and as someone pointed out, doesn't the USPS have the largest resources
>at their disposal?) The fact that almost all those who have been caught
>have alluded to the widespread drugs culture, and even those who haven't
>and no longer compete also allude to it.

There can be other reasons for that. If I get caught, of COURSE I am
going to say "everyone does it, I had to just be be competitive". If
I'm retired I can allude to the fact that I would have kicked
everyone's butt all the time "had they not been doing drugs". Basic
psychology (sandbox edition) 101.

> The fact that anyone that
>follows the Tour with any interest generally accepts that drug abuse is
>widespread.

I would not have disagreed 6 years ago. I do today.

> Then of course, there was the seizure by French police of
>medical refuse, dumped suspiciously by the USPS in 2000, containing
>hypodermics and bandages, and the admission by Armstrong that he worked
>with Dr Ferrari who is known to have promoted the use of EPO.

There are a lot of very valid (and legal) uses for syringes - let's
not forget that many riders are rehydrating intraveniously (sp?), and
no doubt taking other (legal) supplements in the most effective manner
as well. The riders are also under constant monitoring by their
handlers, including frequent blood chemistry testing (also requiring a
syringe).

>I realise that it's all circumstantial, but I think there's certainly
>the possibility that Armstrong could one day be caught in a drugs scandal.

The new of you and that 12 year old girl will trump it though... ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[[email protected]]

On 22 Jul 2003 10:25:51 -0700, (Paladin) wrote:
> bomba > wrote in message news:<bfir4d$fef35$1@ID-
147573.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > Paladin wrote:
> >
> > >>You may one day come to eat those words...
> > >
> > >
> > > Sure, no doubt it's possible, as it happens fairly regularly, but is
> > > there any aspect of the statement in particular you're focusing on?
> > > More roadies are good role models? Lance isn't a good one? ??
> >
> > I think one has to accept that the higher echelons of road cycling are
> > deeply competitive and it pays to have a healthy scepticism when it
> > comes to their performance. I'm not going to make any unfounded claims,
> > but history has shown that 'Le Tour' is rife with those capitalising on
> > performance enhancement.
> >
> > I forget the name of the doctor, but a specialist called as witness
> > during the Festina trial testified that it was physically impossible for
> > a human to have climbed the Alpe d'Huez in 2000(?) in the time that
> > Armstrong did, without 'help'. Just worth bearing in mind.
>
>
> There are always those claiming something can't be done getting passed
> by those actually doing it. The 4 minute mile. Man on the moon.
>
> Paladin

Head up the ass. 29" wheels. Riser bars.

--
J'm Sm'th

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:47:47 GMT, Super Slinky > wrote:
> Mark Hickey said...
>
> > Some day you may be caught molesting a child. At that point, many
> > will have to consider whether you still constitute a good role model.
> >
> > You might ask how I could write something like that with absolutely no
> > proof that you molest children. Of couse, I could also ask how you
> > could write what you did even though the intense scrutiny Lance has
> > been under (including many, many blood, unine and hair tests) have
> > come up 100% negative. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
> >
> > I take that back - in one of the tours (2000?) he tested positive for
> > a miniscule trace of some banned substance. The French press (and
> > some miscreants on r.b.r.) made much hay about this, even though it
> > was clear that the "problem" was that a saddle sore cream he had used
> > contained the substance and some vanishingly small amount had gotten
> > into his blood stream.
>
> But isn't it true that not all performance enhancing drugs are
> detectable?

Without making too broad a statement, as the Official a.m-b Stand-Up Chemist, I
would say that *all* performance enhancing drugs are detectable. It's a matter
of how much money you want to spend to detect things, which things you think are
the worst offenders, who's going to pay for the analysis, how long the analysis
takes, etc.

Keeping in mind all the time that 'you can't measure zero'.

--
J'm Sm'th

[bomba]

Mark Hickey wrote:

>>I can write that based on the large amount of evidence and hearsay of
>>rampant drug abuse in professional cycling. The fact that advances in
>>performance-enhancing practices are always one step ahead of detection
>>(and as someone pointed out, doesn't the USPS have the largest resources
>>at their disposal?) The fact that almost all those who have been caught
>>have alluded to the widespread drugs culture, and even those who haven't
>>and no longer compete also allude to it.
>
>
> There can be other reasons for that. If I get caught, of COURSE I am
> going to say "everyone does it, I had to just be be competitive".

So why have cheats from other sports never said the same thing? It does
seem to be a recurring theme from cyclists.

If
> I'm retired I can allude to the fact that I would have kicked
> everyone's butt all the time "had they not been doing drugs". Basic
> psychology (sandbox edition) 101.

What about the people that did the butt-kicking? People like Merckx,
Lemond and Boardman have all mentioned it.

>>The fact that anyone that
>>follows the Tour with any interest generally accepts that drug abuse is
>>widespread.
>
>
> I would not have disagreed 6 years ago. I do today.

Ok. Of course, none of the top riders have failed a drugs test in the
last 6 years. Oh, hang on, wait, yes they have.

>>Then of course, there was the seizure by French police of
>>medical refuse, dumped suspiciously by the USPS in 2000, containing
>>hypodermics and bandages, and the admission by Armstrong that he worked
>>with Dr Ferrari who is known to have promoted the use of EPO.
>
>
> There are a lot of very valid (and legal) uses for syringes - let's
> not forget that many riders are rehydrating intraveniously (sp?), and
> no doubt taking other (legal) supplements in the most effective manner
> as well. The riders are also under constant monitoring by their
> handlers, including frequent blood chemistry testing (also requiring a
> syringe).

I agree, but there's the lingering question of why they tried to dump it
secretly on a back road.

>>I realise that it's all circumstantial, but I think there's certainly
>>the possibility that Armstrong could one day be caught in a drugs scandal.
>
>
> The new of you and that 12 year old girl will trump it though... ;-)

Hey, she said on e-mail that she was 19 and just wanted a trip to Paris :)
</topical>

--
a.m-b FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/ambfaq.htm

a.bmx FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/bmx_faq.htm

[bomba]

wrote:

>>Well, I'm a chemist too, by coincidence, but I don't claim to be an
>>expert on drug testing. I have heard in the past that some things are
>>not detectable, like human growth hormone and EPO. Perhaps there are
>>others. But maybe the real question is if there are performance
>>enhancing drugs that aren't tested for.
>
>
> That is no doubt much more relevant. I'm sure new performance enhancing substances are being
> 'discovered' all the time, and it's a difficult task to keep up with them, from an analytical
> standpoint.

My understanding is that the drug-detection business is mainly a
reactionary affair.

--
a.m-b FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/ambfaq.htm

a.bmx FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/bmx_faq.htm

[Raptor]

Chris Phillipo wrote:
> Does anyone know who they test during the tour? Is it random, or the
> top 10 or what? I mean could the winner be clean but the guy who draged
> him there with the Camelbak full of steroids hooked directly to his
> heart finish 50th place so they both come out clean?

I don't *know*, but I suspect they pull the winners plus random
finishers from the field every day.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we could to protect
our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security."
--Microsoft VP in charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.

[Raptor]

Raptor wrote:
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
>
>> Does anyone know who they test during the tour? Is it random, or the
>> top 10 or what? I mean could the winner be clean but the guy who
>> draged him there with the Camelbak full of steroids hooked directly to
>> his heart finish 50th place so they both come out clean?
>
>
> I don't *know*, but I suspect they pull the winners plus random
> finishers from the field every day.

I heard (on Usenet...) that the top six from Tyler's stage win were
tested, and for LANCE's win Monday.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we could to protect
our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security."
--Microsoft VP in charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.