Lemond / Armstrong relationship (was Re: end of interview.)

[TimBenz]

"Michael" > wrote in
:

> Why don't they like each other?

I think they do get along now. There were various periods when the two were
at odds, most recently over some comments Lemond made after Armstrong's
2001 win: "If Lance is clean, it is the greatest comeback in the history of
sport. If he isn't, it would be the greatest fraud."

See the tail-end of this New Yorker profile
http://www.michaelspecter.com/ny/2002/2002_07_15_lance.html

[Merovingian]

TimBenz > wrote in message >...
> "Michael" > wrote in
> :
>
> > Why don't they like each other?
>
> I think they do get along now. There were various periods when the two were
> at odds, most recently over some comments Lemond made after Armstrong's
> 2001 win: "If Lance is clean, it is the greatest comeback in the history of
> sport. If he isn't, it would be the greatest fraud."
>
> See the tail-end of this New Yorker profile
> http://www.michaelspecter.com/ny/2002/2002_07_15_lance.html

Doesn't Lance get dope tests after each event? Or before/during the
TDF? After his win in Stage 15 (Bagnères-de-Bigorre > Luz-Ardiden),
didn't they give Lance a dope test? At least, this is what I read in
this month's SI.

[Kyle Legate]

> Doesn't Lance get dope tests after each event? Or before/during the
> TDF? After his win in Stage 15 (Bagnères-de-Bigorre > Luz-Ardiden),
> didn't they give Lance a dope test? At least, this is what I read in
> this month's SI.
>
Passing a dope test doesn't mean you're clean.

[Hank Sniadoch]

Passing a dope means you are clean .... just give up, won't you? Lance is
the man.
"Kyle Legate" > wrote in message
s.com...
> > Doesn't Lance get dope tests after each event? Or before/during the
> > TDF? After his win in Stage 15 (Bagnères-de-Bigorre > Luz-Ardiden),
> > didn't they give Lance a dope test? At least, this is what I read in
> > this month's SI.
> >
> Passing a dope test doesn't mean you're clean.
>
>

[Dashi Toshii]

"Hank Sniadoch" > wrote in message
...
> Passing a dope means you are clean .... just give up, won't you? Lance is
> the man.

And you are what? His girl?

lol

Dashii

[Carl Sundquist]

"Hank Sniadoch" > wrote in message
...
> Passing a dope means you are clean .... just give up, won't you? Lance is
> the man.
> "Kyle Legate" > wrote in message
> s.com...
> > > Doesn't Lance get dope tests after each event? Or before/during the
> > > TDF? After his win in Stage 15 (Bagnères-de-Bigorre > Luz-Ardiden),
> > > didn't they give Lance a dope test? At least, this is what I read in
> > > this month's SI.
> > >
> > Passing a dope test doesn't mean you're clean.
> >
> >

Passing a dope test means you have not been detected for any banned
substances, which is not the same as clean.

[never_doped]

At this point in time every vested interest in cycling is in maintaining
the status quo. ie: "The riders are clean" "The sport is clean" and ergo
"Lance is clean".

Even if a top rider tested positive according to the levels set
right now I would suspect it is in the best interest of the UCI or
Tour de (any tour) to allow the rider to continue and conceal the
positive results.

A random inconsequential rider should be found testing positive at each
event to make appearances look good.

We know from studies that all of these athletes are within a few percent
of each other and we know from studies that the advantage gained from a
single doping procedure or substance can be as great as 8%. It only goes
to follow that any cyclist that tests positive and is not winning the
tour is a clear indication that everyone ahead of him is doping.

There are those that argue that the finishing order remains the same and
the 'dopers' all are on a level playing field. The equation has now
become n * EPO + n * HGH + n * IGF + n * corticosteroids,
bronchodilators, vasodilators and vasoconstrictors, potent analgesics
creatine (etc) = winner

To some this is acceptable but to riders that ride clean it is
detestable.

I have been gather information that makes me certain that for the most
part almost all athletes in all sports use procedures or substances that
violate the rules or the spirit of the rules in almost every sport and
at almost every level once economic gain is perceived by the athlete or
his handlers.

I don't know why Lemond is so upset about Lance's doping. There is quite
a bit of evidence that Lemond used procedures and substances while
working with Eddie B and beyond.

Armstrong has right to be upset as there is usually a code of silence
among criminals.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[TimBenz]

never_doped > wrote in news:3f2dac60$1_2
@news.chariot.net.au:

> At this point in time every vested interest in cycling is in maintaining
> the status quo. ie: "The riders are clean" "The sport is clean" and ergo
> "Lance is clean".

Very well put note. Your thoughts and sentiments, while certainly
unvarnished, mirror mine very closely.

T.

[psycholist]

"never_doped" > wrote in message
...
> At this point in time every vested interest in cycling is in maintaining
> the status quo. ie: "The riders are clean" "The sport is clean" and ergo
> "Lance is clean".
>
> Even if a top rider tested positive according to the levels set
> right now I would suspect it is in the best interest of the UCI or
> Tour de (any tour) to allow the rider to continue and conceal the
> positive results.
>
> A random inconsequential rider should be found testing positive at each
> event to make appearances look good.
>
> We know from studies that all of these athletes are within a few percent
> of each other and we know from studies that the advantage gained from a
> single doping procedure or substance can be as great as 8%. It only goes
> to follow that any cyclist that tests positive and is not winning the
> tour is a clear indication that everyone ahead of him is doping.
>
> There are those that argue that the finishing order remains the same and
> the 'dopers' all are on a level playing field. The equation has now
> become n * EPO + n * HGH + n * IGF + n * corticosteroids,
> bronchodilators, vasodilators and vasoconstrictors, potent analgesics
> creatine (etc) = winner
>
> To some this is acceptable but to riders that ride clean it is
> detestable.
>
> I have been gather information that makes me certain that for the most
> part almost all athletes in all sports use procedures or substances that
> violate the rules or the spirit of the rules in almost every sport and
> at almost every level once economic gain is perceived by the athlete or
> his handlers.
>
> I don't know why Lemond is so upset about Lance's doping. There is quite
> a bit of evidence that Lemond used procedures and substances while
> working with Eddie B and beyond.
>
> Armstrong has right to be upset as there is usually a code of silence
> among criminals.
>

A very interesting and eloquent post. Unfortunately, it's long on innuendo
and short on evidence.

Bob C.

[Kurgan Gringioni]

"never_doped" > wrote in message
...

> Even if a top rider tested positive according to the levels set
> right now I would suspect it is in the best interest of the UCI or
> Tour de (any tour) to allow the rider to continue and conceal the
> positive results.

Remember, Pantani got booted out of the 1999 Giro when he was in pink.

> We know from studies that all of these athletes are within a few percent
> of each other and we know from studies that the advantage gained from a
> single doping procedure or substance can be as great as 8%. It only goes
> to follow that any cyclist that tests positive and is not winning the
> tour is a clear indication that everyone ahead of him is doping.

That's not true. I could dope up to the max, enter even a domestic pro race
and be in the bottom half. That doesn't mean everyone ahead of me is doped.

Some riders dope up in amateur levels just to make it to the pro level.
After that, they go nowhere.

> There are those that argue that the finishing order remains the same and
> the 'dopers' all are on a level playing field. The equation has now
> become n * EPO + n * HGH + n * IGF + n * corticosteroids,
> bronchodilators, vasodilators and vasoconstrictors, potent analgesics
> creatine (etc) = winner

IGF? What's that?

> I have been gather information that makes me certain that for the most
> part almost all athletes in all sports use procedures or substances that
> violate the rules or the spirit of the rules in almost every sport and
> at almost every level once economic gain is perceived by the athlete or
> his handlers.

Of course. Just like there is insider trading in amont the corporate higher
ups in the stock market.

> I don't know why Lemond is so upset about Lance's doping. There is quite
> a bit of evidence that Lemond used procedures and substances while
> working with Eddie B and beyond.

This is just speculation of course, but I think Lemond is upset at being sup
erceded as the greatest ever American cyclist. He probably didn't imagine
that his reign would end so soon.

[Nev Shea]

"Kurgan Gringioni" > wrote in
:


> This is just speculation of course, but I think Lemond is upset at
> being sup erceded as the greatest ever American cyclist. He probably
> didn't imagine that his reign would end so soon.


I agree. Plus, he had the drama of coming back after getting shot, and then
Lance even one-ups that comeback with cancer. At least, Lemond will always
be remembered as the first American virtual 4 time TDF winner.

NS

[Kyle Legate]

Hank Sniadoch wrote:
> Passing a dope means you are clean .... just give up, won't you?
> Lance is the man.
>
Are you going to test positive if you dope with hGH or Insulin? Yes or no?
This post has nothing to do with whether either of those substances are
performance enhancing, but it has everything to do with whether passing a
dope test means you're clean.

[Kyle Legate]

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>
> IGF? What's that?
>
Insulin-like growth factor. I've never heard of it being used for doping,
but with a name like that the pros might think it's insulin and growth
factor all rolled into one. Bonus!

[Andrew McDonald]

"Kyle Legate" > wrote in message >...
> > Doesn't Lance get dope tests after each event? Or before/during the
> > TDF? After his win in Stage 15 (Bagnères-de-Bigorre > Luz-Ardiden),
> > didn't they give Lance a dope test? At least, this is what I read in
> > this month's SI.
> >
> Passing a dope test doesn't mean you're clean.

There are specifically banned drugs for which there are no tests.
There are drugs that are still in testing for approval that are not
specifically on the banned list but are generally illegal by the
dragnet clause definition.

Dope tests only target specific drugs as dope tests are horrifically
expensive (about $100 per test for a specific drug) - I believe UCI at
one time were only targeting EPO.

Interesting extract from John Lieswyn diary at -

http://www.cyclingnews.com/riders/2003/diaries/john/?id=john0324

He states -

"It's a measure of our ideals and our indifference that we idolize the
pro sports that are completely drug-ridden. While deploring the use of
it in cycling, those who have profited from it and escaped punishment
are rich and famous."

The article is interesting as Carmichael claimed elsewhere LA's post
cancer break through improvement related mainly to him training harder
than in prior years but this article by Lieswyn would refute this
claim.

[Kurgan Gringioni]

"Andrew McDonald" > wrote in message
om...
> "Kyle Legate" > wrote in message
>...
> > > Doesn't Lance get dope tests after each event? Or before/during the
> > > TDF? After his win in Stage 15 (Bagnères-de-Bigorre > Luz-Ardiden),
> > > didn't they give Lance a dope test? At least, this is what I read in
> > > this month's SI.
> > >
> > Passing a dope test doesn't mean you're clean.
>
> There are specifically banned drugs for which there are no tests.
> There are drugs that are still in testing for approval that are not
> specifically on the banned list but are generally illegal by the
> dragnet clause definition.
>
> Dope tests only target specific drugs as dope tests are horrifically
> expensive (about $100 per test for a specific drug) - I believe UCI at
> one time were only targeting EPO.
>
> Interesting extract from John Lieswyn diary at -
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/riders/2003/diaries/john/?id=john0324
>
> He states -
>
> "It's a measure of our ideals and our indifference that we idolize the
> pro sports that are completely drug-ridden. While deploring the use of
> it in cycling, those who have profited from it and escaped punishment
> are rich and famous."
>
> The article is interesting as Carmichael claimed elsewhere LA's post
> cancer break through improvement related mainly to him training harder
> than in prior years but this article by Lieswyn would refute this
> claim.


It does not refute, it insinuates.

To refute, one must present factual evidence.

[warren]

In article >, Carl Sundquist
> wrote:

> Are there riders who are not using any banned products
> whatsoever? I'm certain there are.

I'm pretty certain one of them was/is Bobby Julich. When Max was
coaching him (3rd at the Tour) he couldn't even get Bobby to take some
common, legal sports supplements.

-WG

[never_doped]

Kurgan, I think I included that they have to be a part of that
elite group to begin with. At that point the gains made by doping
procedures/substances are the difference between not finishing
and winning.

More real world examples:


I speed like crazy. I'll go as fast as I can on almost any major street
or highway. I keep a Valentine 1 on my windshield and in my experience
the cops don't have a chance. I make regular runs of 600 miles + and I
frequently get pulled over but no ticket issued because the cops are
getting phone calls from cell phones of the cars I pass but unable to
catch me in the act because of the V1. Am I a speeder? Yes. Does my
insurance company or the state know that? No. I am doing that in the
wide open, not in the privacy of a hotel room.

What about recreational drug use? We all know people that have used
recreational drugs chronically yet manage to pass pre-employment urine
tests. Filling out the Medical Disclosure Form with a proper cross
reactive is one way to get around it. So is proper ****ing techniques
and hydration to get detectables below limits.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[never_doped]

Kurgan, What coach do Steve Hegg and Greg Lemond share in common?

What did Steve Hegg do in 1984 and under what coach?

What about 'Craig Ingrams' results in 1990 and under what coach?

http://www.times-olympics.co.uk/communities/cycling/cyclinghistory.html

Hasn't Pantani been found to be chronic doper?

http://www.slam.ca/SlamCyclingArchive/jun6_pan.html

Te stock market it is a lot more traceable than the EPO HGH caravan
eminating from Portugal and Spain across the French border.

(Why did the Armstrongs relocate?)



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Andrew McDonald]

"Kurgan Gringioni" > wrote in message >...
> "Andrew McDonald" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Kyle Legate" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > Doesn't Lance get dope tests after each event? Or before/during the
> > > > TDF? After his win in Stage 15 (Bagnères-de-Bigorre > Luz-Ardiden),
> > > > didn't they give Lance a dope test? At least, this is what I read in
> > > > this month's SI.
> > > >
> > > Passing a dope test doesn't mean you're clean.
> >
> > There are specifically banned drugs for which there are no tests.
> > There are drugs that are still in testing for approval that are not
> > specifically on the banned list but are generally illegal by the
> > dragnet clause definition.
> >
> > Dope tests only target specific drugs as dope tests are horrifically
> > expensive (about $100 per test for a specific drug) - I believe UCI at
> > one time were only targeting EPO.
> >
> > Interesting extract from John Lieswyn diary at -
> >
> > http://www.cyclingnews.com/riders/2003/diaries/john/?id=john0324
> >
> > He states -
> >
> > "It's a measure of our ideals and our indifference that we idolize the
> > pro sports that are completely drug-ridden. While deploring the use of
> > it in cycling, those who have profited from it and escaped punishment
> > are rich and famous."
> >
> > The article is interesting as Carmichael claimed elsewhere LA's post
> > cancer break through improvement related mainly to him training harder
> > than in prior years but this article by Lieswyn would refute this
> > claim.
>
>
> It does not refute, it insinuates.
>
> To refute, one must present factual evidence.

Lieswyn does not make the connection so therefore he does not
insinuate. I have brought together two factual statements that are
inconsistent. Lieswyn claimed LA pre cancer training program set by
Carmichael and carried out by LA was too hard for mere mortals. But
Carmichael has claimed that the reason behind LA's post cancer success
is hard dedicated training compared to his pre cancer attitude to
training.

[Howard Kveck]

In article >,
"Kurgan Gringioni" > wrote:

> "Andrew McDonald" > wrote in message
> om...
> > http://www.cyclingnews.com/riders/2003/diaries/john/?id=john0324
> >
> > He states -
> >
> > "It's a measure of our ideals and our indifference that we idolize the
> > pro sports that are completely drug-ridden. While deploring the use of
> > it in cycling, those who have profited from it and escaped punishment
> > are rich and famous."
> >
> > The article is interesting as Carmichael claimed elsewhere LA's post
> > cancer break through improvement related mainly to him training harder
> > than in prior years but this article by Lieswyn would refute this
> > claim.
>
>
> It does not refute, it insinuates.
>
> To refute, one must present factual evidence.

This was my interpretation when I read that: "The pro sports that are
completely drug-ridden" refers to other sports than cycling, which has been
pretty public about its testing and the results of the testing. Other sports,
which don't have the testing (public or otherwise) are still idolized and those
people have profited from the lack of testing.
John posts here from time to time. Maybe he could expand on what he wrote???
John? Please?

--
tanx,
Howard

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, k?

[never_doped]

Kurgan,

I posted historical facts and knowledge to every point and question you
had and 'dumbass' is all you can come up with?

You didn't answer one question about the relationships that exist
between individuals who enforce the 'win at any cost' motto.

There is no point in arguing with you.



Oh well, love is blind.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[warren]

In article >, Kurgan
Gringioni > wrote:

> Example: Julich's 3rd place in 1998. Looks suspicious to me, given the other
> "career years" that Cofidis riders had in that tour (Roland Meier,
> Christophe Rinero). Warren claims that Julich didn't even take legal
> supplements then. Does either one of us know for certain? Absolutely not.
> Who does know? Julich himself and perhaps a few other people.

Get your facts straight. I said his coach said he was clean. Part of
the reason Julich did relatively well in the Tour that year is because
alot of guys who would normally beat him by cheating were afraid to
cheat after the Festina affair or they dropped out of the race.

-WG

[Heinz Getzler]

"Carl Sundquist" > wrote in message >...
> "Heinz Getzler" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > Passing a dope test means you have not been detected for any banned
> > > substances, which is not the same as clean.

The problem here is that you are still assuming a rider is positive
without any proof. If there is no test to detect a drug what else do
you want as proof.......................????????????
> >
> > This is ridiculous it sounds like some sort of Napolanic court
> > proceseding where you are presumed guilty.
>
> I never said anything of the sort, but it is widely acknowledged that there
> are banned substances that cannot currently be detected. AFAIK, even
> something as common as EPO cannot be detected after several days past
> administration of it, yet the benefits don't even begin until several weeks
> later.
>
> Are there riders using banned products in pro racing and not getting caught?
> Quite likely. Are there riders who are not using any banned products
> whatsoever? I'm certain there are. Do I personally lose sleep at night
> trying to determine which riders are beating the system and which ones are
> playing the game by the rules? No, although if I was in the testing industry
> I'm sure I would.
>
> > If the test don't show
> > Armstrong positive then it's not up to him to prove anything more.
>
> I never said it was.

[warren]

In article >, Kurgan
Gringioni > wrote:

> "never_doped" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Kurgan,
> >
> > I posted historical facts and knowledge to every point and question you
> > had and 'dumbass' is all you can come up with?
> >
> > You didn't answer one question about the relationships that exist
> > between individuals who enforce the 'win at any cost' motto.
>
>
>
> Goddamm, you are a ****ing Dumbass -
>
> I will repeat my point:
>
> We all know that there is a doping problem. However, unless one has first
> hand information, it is not possible to tell *for certain* if an individual
> is clean (or not).
>
>
>
> Linking individuals is not proof. There is one or 2 degrees of separation
> from any serious cyclist to a doping cyclist.
>
> First hand knowledge (or a positive test), that is proof.

Correct. For example, Lance has a strong relationship with Ferrari and
there have been several riders trained by Ferrari who used EPO and
Ferrari has admitted that some of the riders he coached/trained used
EPO. Ferrari says he never prescribed EPO but he could certainly tell
the rider where to get it and how to use it. And Ferrari could tell
Lance all kinds of helpful information about his training but that
doesn't mean Lance uses EPO.

-WG

[Carl Sundquist]

"Heinz Getzler" > wrote in message
m...
> "Carl Sundquist" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Heinz Getzler" > wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > Passing a dope test means you have not been detected for any banned
> > > > substances, which is not the same as clean.
>
> The problem here is that you are still assuming a rider is positive
> without any proof. If there is no test to detect a drug what else do
> you want as proof.......................????????????
> > >

The basis on which I concede is the thread "EPO positive: mark your bets".

I participated in the thread, despite a nagging thought of bad karma due to
throwing out a name purely on the basis of the parameters (Italian, not well
known, DNF, no stage wins, etc.). I suggested the name of a rider, with no
proof.

By that measure, I am wrong and at fault.

[Robert Chung]

"Carl Sundquist" > wrote in message
...
>
> The basis on which I concede is the thread "EPO positive: mark your bets".
>
> I participated in the thread, despite a nagging thought of bad karma due
to
> throwing out a name purely on the basis of the parameters (Italian, not
well
> known, DNF, no stage wins, etc.). I suggested the name of a rider, with no
> proof.
>
> By that measure, I am wrong and at fault.

No more so than participating in that Pentagon terrorism futures market.

[never_doped]

Warren, It's not just Dr. Ferrari, it's a history of being surrounded by
these elements.

1. His early years at the OTC with Carmichael, Wenzel and Fraser. Same
as Strock, Latta and Kaiter.

From the Walsh article:

__________________________________________________ _
Armstrong knows of the case and understands the implications.

Has your coach Chris Carmichael made any settlement with Greg Strock?

"Ask Greg or Chris," says Armstrong.

Didn't Chris explain whether he did or didn't?

"No."

Didn't you ask him?

"As far as I am concerned, it was a case between Greg and his coach,
Rene Wenzel."

What if Carmichael had made a settlement, would that not be a shock?

"Would I be shocked? I haven't even thought about it."


More on Carmichael/Wenzel

(from velonews.com) In the response filed with the court, Wenzel also
names the other coach who was allegedly present in a hotel room with him
and Strock in Spokane, Washington, in August of 1990. While conceding
that he accompanied Strock to the room occupied by then-U.S. national
coach Chris Carmichael, Wenzel said the two did not go to the room for
an injection of "extract of cortisone," or a performance-enhancing drug,
as was alleged in Strock's suit.

"Mr. Wenzel admits that Mr. Carmichael had a briefcase from which he
produced a vitamin injection," but added that the injection was made at
Strock's request.

When contacted by VeloNews, Carmichael said he had "no recollection
of an alleged incident that happened more than 10 years ago." When
asked if he had ever been contacted in the case by Strock or his
attorneys, Carmichael said that he didn't care to comment on any
aspect of the matter beyond noting that he didn't recall the alleged
incident in question.

Apparently later Chris remembered the incident well enough to make an
out of court settlement to Strock. Of course if you injected 100's of
riders 1000's of times there would be no reason that one single
injection would stand out of what was a routine.


__________________________________________________

2. Any involvement with Eddie B almost always suspect.

(This is not to say that simply riding for or under Eddie B is the same
as a positive test. There are many riders that rode for him and had the
same or slightly better performances during that time. It is the
combination of out of range deviations and the coaching connection that
raises flags. )

We know that Eddie championed Eastern European methods to get our
incredible results in the 1980's. These methods filtered down to all
levels of coaching at the OTC and remain entrenched.

Steve Hegg admits the 1984 blood boosting (not prohibited then) and the
rides in relative obscurity for almost 6 years until he reunite with
Eddie under the Subaru-Montgomery flag and has his 1990 performances.

Many other well known riders came out of this period and time and are
also suspect. Judge for yourself.


3. Lance has a history of playing stupid or naive when questioned about
specifics:

From the Walsh article:
__________________________________________________ __


So we speak of Lance Armstrong and Michele Ferrari. Did you ever visit
Dr Ferrari?

"I did know Michele Ferrari."

How did you get to know him?

"When you go to races, you see people. I know every team's doctor. It's
a small community."

Did you ever visit Ferrari?

"Have I been tested by him, gone there and consulted on certain
things? Perhaps."

Sources close to the investigation of Ferrari are more precise about
Armstrong's relationship with the doctor. They tell of a series of
visits by the rider to Ferrari's practice at Ferrara in northern Italy:
two days in March 1999, three days in May 2000, two days in August 2000,
one day in September 2000 and three days in late April/early May of this
year. While he was in Ferrara, Armstrong stayed at the five-star Hotel
Duchessa Isabella and at the four-star Hotel Annunziata.
__________________________________________________ __

After this interview was published Lance's 'perhaps' became this
statement:

"For many years now, dating back to 1990, Chris Carmichael has been my
coach and most important technical and training advisor. Others who work
with Chris include Johan Bruyneel, my director sportif, John Cobb, in
charge of aerodynamics, Dr. Luis del Moral, our team physician and Jeff
Spencer my chiropractor.

Also included are my close friends, former Belgian champion Eddy Merckx
and former Motorola team director Jim Ochowitz.

Chris and I met Michele Ferrari during a training camp in San Diego,
California, in 1995. His primary role has always been limited. Since
Chris cannot be in Europe on an ongoing basis, Michele does my
physiological testing and provides Chris with that data on a regular
basis. Chris has grown to trust Michele's opinion regarding my testing
and my form on the bike. And lately, we have been specifically working
on a run at the hour record. I do not know exactly when I will do that,
only that I will in the near future.

He has also consulted with Chris and me on dieting, altitude
preparation, hypoxic training and the use of altitude tents, which are
all natural methods of improvements.

In the past, I have never denied my relationship with Michele Ferrari.
On the other hand, I have never gone out of my way to publicize it. The
reason for that is that he has had a questionable public reputation due
to the irresponsible comments he made in 1994 regarding EPO.

I want to make it clear that I do not associate myself with those
remarks or, for that matter, with anyone who utilizes unethical sporting
procedures. However, in my personal experience I have never had occasion
to question the ethics or standard of care of Michele. Specifically, he
has never discussed EPO with me and I have never used it.

I have always been very clear on the necessity of cycling to be a clean
sport and I have firmly stated that anyone, including me, who tests
positive for banned substances should be severely punished.

As everyone knows, I am one of the very few riders who have no
prescriptions in my health book. I have been repeatedly tested during my
career including during the entire 1999 and 2000 Tours de France and
most recently during the Tour de Suisse ten days ago.
__________________________________________________ __

3a. More naiveness:

Walsh:

Ferrari is accused of treating riders with EPO, the drug that increases
the blood's oxygen-carrying red cells and enhances the rider's
endurance. For most humans, red cells account for 43% or 44% of the
total blood volume, a measure known as the haematocrit level. To counter
the abuse of EPO, the authorities now ban riders whose haematocrit
exceeds 50%. The Sunday Times has seen pages from Livingston's file at
Ferrari's office. The readings for his blood parameters are unusual. In
December 1997 Livingston's haematrocrit is recorded at 41.2%. Seven
months later, a few days before the start of the 1998 Tour de France,
Livingston's haematrocrit is 49.9%. Such a variation in a seven-month
period is uncommon.

Did you know Kevin was linked with the doping investigation?

"Yes."

Did you talk with him about it?

"No."

Never?

"No. You keep coming up with all these side stories. I can only comment
on Lance Armstrong. I don't speak for others."

This was your best friend?

"But I don't meddle in their business."

On the Actovegin discovery despite being widely reported, Lance has
problems stating the name of the substance:

"I will say that the substance on people's minds, Activ-o-something is
new to me. Before this ordeal I had never heard of it, nor had my
teammates."


4. Lance's own statements on doping:

When asked point blank about whether he has ever used performance
enhancing drugs.

"The only thing I can say is that I never tested positive or was ever
caught for anything."

When asked about other cyclists guilty of doping:

"For me, once they have served their time, I look at them all as
clean riders."

(Try that the next time your girlfriend asks if you've ever cheated on
her. "Well sweetie, the only thing I can say is that you've never caught
me and if you ever did as long as I didn't do it again it's OK." Better
buy that subscribtion to Playboy now.)


5. Other professionals implicating Lance under oath and at their
own jeopardy:

Simeoni is suing Armstrong for a symbolic amount when Armstrong called
Simeoni 'a liar' based on his testimony in the Ferrari trial.

Simeoni appears to be honest despite the cost to his own reputation and
career. Simeoni had to serve a suspension as the result of his own
honesty and openness.

Some note on Simeoni:

Simeoni told Soprani he worked with Ferrari between October 1996 and
July 1997 and alleges Ferrari advised him how to dodge the tests for
blood thickness, intended to restrict the use of EPO.

In one of his diaries Simeoni wrote: "Doctor Ferrari advised me to use
two alternatives: Hemagel [a blood thinning agent] on the morning of the
control, albumin [an element contained in white blood cells] on the
evening before a possible control."

(these procedures assist getting below detectable limits for HGH and
EPO)

Simeoni, who won four races last year, said Ferrari had not warned him
about possible side-effects and that he stopped working with him
because he felt Ferrari was giving preferential treatment to others.
"Ferrari did not treat me with the same efficiency he showed to other
athletes," he said.


Simeoni on Armstrong:

"I'm determined to take this all the way. I decided to start legal
action against Armstrong because he told lies about me.

"I did my duty as a citizen and told the truth during the Ferrari trial.
I was suspended from racing and humiliated in front of everybody and
don't deserve to be called a liar by Armstrong."

Voet: "I know from an inside source that Armstrong uses more than a
dozen products on medical prescription." Of course there's lots of stuff
to be found in teams' bins. And in Lance's particular case that might
even be more evident .




The point is that people in the court systems have been found guilty on
less evidence and are serving jail time under US drug laws and as we all
know OJ is playing golf and Lance is wearing yellow.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[warren]

In article >, never_doped
> wrote:

You have mentioned lots of what's called "guilt by association" and
weak innuendo but absolutely nothing close to proof of any wrongdoing
by Lance or Chris Carmichael.

-WG


> Warren, It's not just Dr. Ferrari, it's a history of being surrounded by
> these elements.
>
> 1. His early years at the OTC with Carmichael, Wenzel and Fraser. Same
> as Strock, Latta and Kaiter.
>
> From the Walsh article:
>
> __________________________________________________ _
> Armstrong knows of the case and understands the implications.
>
> Has your coach Chris Carmichael made any settlement with Greg Strock?
>
> "Ask Greg or Chris," says Armstrong.
>
> Didn't Chris explain whether he did or didn't?
>
> "No."
>
> Didn't you ask him?
>
> "As far as I am concerned, it was a case between Greg and his coach,
> Rene Wenzel."
>
> What if Carmichael had made a settlement, would that not be a shock?
>
> "Would I be shocked? I haven't even thought about it."
>
>
> More on Carmichael/Wenzel
>
> (from velonews.com) In the response filed with the court, Wenzel also
> names the other coach who was allegedly present in a hotel room with him
> and Strock in Spokane, Washington, in August of 1990. While conceding
> that he accompanied Strock to the room occupied by then-U.S. national
> coach Chris Carmichael, Wenzel said the two did not go to the room for
> an injection of "extract of cortisone," or a performance-enhancing drug,
> as was alleged in Strock's suit.
>
> "Mr. Wenzel admits that Mr. Carmichael had a briefcase from which he
> produced a vitamin injection," but added that the injection was made at
> Strock's request.
>
> When contacted by VeloNews, Carmichael said he had "no recollection
> of an alleged incident that happened more than 10 years ago." When
> asked if he had ever been contacted in the case by Strock or his
> attorneys, Carmichael said that he didn't care to comment on any
> aspect of the matter beyond noting that he didn't recall the alleged
> incident in question.
>
> Apparently later Chris remembered the incident well enough to make an
> out of court settlement to Strock. Of course if you injected 100's of
> riders 1000's of times there would be no reason that one single
> injection would stand out of what was a routine.
>
>
> __________________________________________________
>
> 2. Any involvement with Eddie B almost always suspect.
>
> (This is not to say that simply riding for or under Eddie B is the same
> as a positive test. There are many riders that rode for him and had the
> same or slightly better performances during that time. It is the
> combination of out of range deviations and the coaching connection that
> raises flags. )
>
> We know that Eddie championed Eastern European methods to get our
> incredible results in the 1980's. These methods filtered down to all
> levels of coaching at the OTC and remain entrenched.
>
> Steve Hegg admits the 1984 blood boosting (not prohibited then) and the
> rides in relative obscurity for almost 6 years until he reunite with
> Eddie under the Subaru-Montgomery flag and has his 1990 performances.
>
> Many other well known riders came out of this period and time and are
> also suspect. Judge for yourself.
>
>
> 3. Lance has a history of playing stupid or naive when questioned about
> specifics:
>
> From the Walsh article:
> __________________________________________________ __
>
>
> So we speak of Lance Armstrong and Michele Ferrari. Did you ever visit
> Dr Ferrari?
>
> "I did know Michele Ferrari."
>
> How did you get to know him?
>
> "When you go to races, you see people. I know every team's doctor. It's
> a small community."
>
> Did you ever visit Ferrari?
>
> "Have I been tested by him, gone there and consulted on certain
> things? Perhaps."
>
> Sources close to the investigation of Ferrari are more precise about
> Armstrong's relationship with the doctor. They tell of a series of
> visits by the rider to Ferrari's practice at Ferrara in northern Italy:
> two days in March 1999, three days in May 2000, two days in August 2000,
> one day in September 2000 and three days in late April/early May of this
> year. While he was in Ferrara, Armstrong stayed at the five-star Hotel
> Duchessa Isabella and at the four-star Hotel Annunziata.
> __________________________________________________ __
>
> After this interview was published Lance's 'perhaps' became this
> statement:
>
> "For many years now, dating back to 1990, Chris Carmichael has been my
> coach and most important technical and training advisor. Others who work
> with Chris include Johan Bruyneel, my director sportif, John Cobb, in
> charge of aerodynamics, Dr. Luis del Moral, our team physician and Jeff
> Spencer my chiropractor.
>
> Also included are my close friends, former Belgian champion Eddy Merckx
> and former Motorola team director Jim Ochowitz.
>
> Chris and I met Michele Ferrari during a training camp in San Diego,
> California, in 1995. His primary role has always been limited. Since
> Chris cannot be in Europe on an ongoing basis, Michele does my
> physiological testing and provides Chris with that data on a regular
> basis. Chris has grown to trust Michele's opinion regarding my testing
> and my form on the bike. And lately, we have been specifically working
> on a run at the hour record. I do not know exactly when I will do that,
> only that I will in the near future.
>
> He has also consulted with Chris and me on dieting, altitude
> preparation, hypoxic training and the use of altitude tents, which are
> all natural methods of improvements.
>
> In the past, I have never denied my relationship with Michele Ferrari.
> On the other hand, I have never gone out of my way to publicize it. The
> reason for that is that he has had a questionable public reputation due
> to the irresponsible comments he made in 1994 regarding EPO.
>
> I want to make it clear that I do not associate myself with those
> remarks or, for that matter, with anyone who utilizes unethical sporting
> procedures. However, in my personal experience I have never had occasion
> to question the ethics or standard of care of Michele. Specifically, he
> has never discussed EPO with me and I have never used it.
>
> I have always been very clear on the necessity of cycling to be a clean
> sport and I have firmly stated that anyone, including me, who tests
> positive for banned substances should be severely punished.
>
> As everyone knows, I am one of the very few riders who have no
> prescriptions in my health book. I have been repeatedly tested during my
> career including during the entire 1999 and 2000 Tours de France and
> most recently during the Tour de Suisse ten days ago.
> __________________________________________________ __
>
> 3a. More naiveness:
>
> Walsh:
>
> Ferrari is accused of treating riders with EPO, the drug that increases
> the blood's oxygen-carrying red cells and enhances the rider's
> endurance. For most humans, red cells account for 43% or 44% of the
> total blood volume, a measure known as the haematocrit level. To counter
> the abuse of EPO, the authorities now ban riders whose haematocrit
> exceeds 50%. The Sunday Times has seen pages from Livingston's file at
> Ferrari's office. The readings for his blood parameters are unusual. In
> December 1997 Livingston's haematrocrit is recorded at 41.2%. Seven
> months later, a few days before the start of the 1998 Tour de France,
> Livingston's haematrocrit is 49.9%. Such a variation in a seven-month
> period is uncommon.
>
> Did you know Kevin was linked with the doping investigation?
>
> "Yes."
>
> Did you talk with him about it?
>
> "No."
>
> Never?
>
> "No. You keep coming up with all these side stories. I can only comment
> on Lance Armstrong. I don't speak for others."
>
> This was your best friend?
>
> "But I don't meddle in their business."
>
> On the Actovegin discovery despite being widely reported, Lance has
> problems stating the name of the substance:
>
> "I will say that the substance on people's minds, Activ-o-something is
> new to me. Before this ordeal I had never heard of it, nor had my
> teammates."
>
>
> 4. Lance's own statements on doping:
>
> When asked point blank about whether he has ever used performance
> enhancing drugs.
>
> "The only thing I can say is that I never tested positive or was ever
> caught for anything."
>
> When asked about other cyclists guilty of doping:
>
> "For me, once they have served their time, I look at them all as
> clean riders."
>
> (Try that the next time your girlfriend asks if you've ever cheated on
> her. "Well sweetie, the only thing I can say is that you've never caught
> me and if you ever did as long as I didn't do it again it's OK." Better
> buy that subscribtion to Playboy now.)
>
>
> 5. Other professionals implicating Lance under oath and at their
> own jeopardy:
>
> Simeoni is suing Armstrong for a symbolic amount when Armstrong called
> Simeoni 'a liar' based on his testimony in the Ferrari trial.
>
> Simeoni appears to be honest despite the cost to his own reputation and
> career. Simeoni had to serve a suspension as the result of his own
> honesty and openness.
>
> Some note on Simeoni:
>
> Simeoni told Soprani he worked with Ferrari between October 1996 and
> July 1997 and alleges Ferrari advised him how to dodge the tests for
> blood thickness, intended to restrict the use of EPO.
>
> In one of his diaries Simeoni wrote: "Doctor Ferrari advised me to use
> two alternatives: Hemagel [a blood thinning agent] on the morning of the
> control, albumin [an element contained in white blood cells] on the
> evening before a possible control."
>
> (these procedures assist getting below detectable limits for HGH and
> EPO)
>
> Simeoni, who won four races last year, said Ferrari had not warned him
> about possible side-effects and that he stopped working with him
> because he felt Ferrari was giving preferential treatment to others.
> "Ferrari did not treat me with the same efficiency he showed to other
> athletes," he said.
>
>
> Simeoni on Armstrong:
>
> "I'm determined to take this all the way. I decided to start legal
> action against Armstrong because he told lies about me.
>
> "I did my duty as a citizen and told the truth during the Ferrari trial.
> I was suspended from racing and humiliated in front of everybody and
> don't deserve to be called a liar by Armstrong."
>
> Voet: "I know from an inside source that Armstrong uses more than a
> dozen products on medical prescription." Of course there's lots of stuff
> to be found in teams' bins. And in Lance's particular case that might
> even be more evident .
>
>
>
>
> The point is that people in the court systems have been found guilty on
> less evidence and are serving jail time under US drug laws and as we all
> know OJ is playing golf and Lance is wearing yellow.
>
>
>
> --
> >--------------------------<
> Posted via cyclingforums.com
> http://www.cyclingforums.com

[never_doped]

You either didn't read the information or have a bias.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Nick Burns]

"never_doped" > wrote in message


> A random inconsequential rider should be found testing positive at each
> event to make appearances look good.

Like Igor Gonzales de Galdeano? You sound exactly like the Armstrong
maniacal tifosi that think "nothing happens in the Tour that Lance does not
want to happen".

So you simply say that there is a conspiracy and any evidence is "simply
what *they* want you to think".

[warren]

In article >, never_doped
> wrote:

> When I was racing < 3.8% fat, a relative VO2 max of 68, the ability to
> tolerate blood lactate > 17mml, the second highest absolute VO ever
> tested at the OTC according to the physiologists (behind Andy Paulin)
> and a resting heart rate of 28.
>
> I could pursuit in the 4:40's, and had a 52:37 40K without aero
> equipment.

> My bias was none until about 4 weeks ago when I started doing some
> research on the subject.

> I am now convinced that doping in procedure or substance up to the UCI
> limits and unknown methods and substances are a requirement to race
> competitively now and probably have been all along.

Those are good accomplishments and knowing that you did it clean and
fair is something to be proud of, but your TT times have been
duplicated by guys who are 35-45 years old who are clean too, albeit
while using aero stuff.

I think part of your bias is because you don't think the guys faster
than you could be that much faster without resorting to drugs, but you
didn't have access to the same level of expertise (training and
coaching) available to most good pros and some amateurs today, and they
don't have to work 40 hours a week like you did so they not only train
smarter they can also train harder.

Based on what I know, I think it's very likely that at least some of
the Mapei guys were clean, and they were/are significantly faster than
you. So why can't alot of other guys be the same?

When you consider a guy like Lance who's VO2max was in the top 1% of
world-class athletes BEFORE he was even near anyone who might have
given him pharmacalogical help and then you develop his ability
carefully and correctly his performance is no surprise to me.

-WG

[Kyle Legate]

never_doped wrote:
>
> More than being proud of my record I am proud that I never doped a
> single substance. I would rather get 10th or 17th honestly that to
> win a gold dishonestly. Others will do anything to win, risk health or
> reputation. I could have taken EPO and had easy access to it but never
> did. It is just a personal preference.
>
Never mind that you couldn't afford it.

[Robert Chung]

"never_doped" > wrote in message
...
> When I was racing < 3.8% fat, a relative VO2 max of 68, the ability to
> tolerate blood lactate > 17mml, the second highest absolute VO ever
> tested at the OTC according to the physiologists (behind Andy Paulin)
> and a resting heart rate of 28.
>
> I could pursuit in the 4:40's, and had a 52:37 40K without aero
> equipment.
>
> I won 6 state championships, 1 silver and was in 3 national
> championships and 1 Olympic Trials.
>
> More than being proud of my record I am proud that I never doped a
> single substance.

Hmmmm. I know a guy who freely admits that he used substances that are
banned for their performance-enhancing effect and his 40K time wasn't as
good as yours.

I submit this as irrefutable proof. You're a doper.

[never_doped]

There might be 10 people or less in the world that would have what is
known as 'actual knowledge' on whether LA is doping or not. Even then
actual knowledge and eyewitnesses aren't as reliable as we'd like
them to be.

(Daniel Shacter has written an extensive amount on the process of memory
and thought formation, "Seven Sins of Memory" is a good start if you're
interested)

It all comes down to belief for the rest of us. Just like a
religious argument.

It is as impossible for me to prove that he is doping as it is for
anyone else to prove he is not.

All I can point to is an overwhelming history of conflicting statements,
partial lies, out of range performances, and an immediate circle of
trainers, doctors, coaches that have a history of using doping
substances and techniques.

My thought is that any doping procedure or substance would take an elite
rider and give them the advantage to beat any other clean elite rider.
Since we know that the majority are doping then it is only reasonable to
assume that you must dope to beat them.

Lance supporters will point to his training intensity and discipline but
even this can't be accomplished without doping IMO. As well, it is
almost impossible to support such a rider and finish in the range of
such a rider without doping.

It is a disappointing realization for me because I love the sport for
the art, drama and athleticism that I believed it represents.

I guess I am feeling a bit like someone that lost their faith. Six weeks
ago I either had no opinion on the subject or was ignorant. Now I have a
wealth of information and am willing to share it with anyone.

A lot of people will point to 'ego' as an offense to why someone would
believe that the rest of the riders are doping. This is not the case
with me. As an example, I believe that Carl Sundquist was a more
consistant faster rider than me, but at the same time I believed that on
a good day I could beat him. I also have no reason to suspect that Carl
ever doped during the period I competed in. Carl was rarely at the OTC
and seemed on the outside of the coaches that were later found to be
involved in doping. The fact that Carl was excluded except as an
alternate from the original 1988 selection also leads me to believe that
he was on the outside somewhat. These coaches mainly worked with juniors
in my experience.

Carl is on the board, perhaps he will see this and make his own
comments.

The reason I stopped racing is that I had done the best I could with an
honest clean effort. I felt that I could not progress any further.
Cycling is too hard of a sport and I did not think that my chances for
success in 1992 were that good either.

To be fair I can understand why a rider would dope and why the coaches
would do it.

At the time our best ride was Heggs 1984 ride and we know that was with
blood boosting. The benchmarks as I saw it were Umaras, Ekimov and
Woods. None of our guys were even close to the times they were putting
up although Hegg could do it by doping. (Probably a lot of us could
have.) Brinton ended up going and was eliminated in the first round
(1/8th final).

At the time I concluded the winners were selected from a larger gene
pool, developed from an earlier age and also trained harder to failure
with the larger sample of 'diamonds'. They could afford to waste good
athletes. As well I gave some weight to that elite athletes in the USA
don't end up riding bicycles. They became tight ends and first basemen
or raced traditional track and field. This may have been the thoughts of
some of the coaches in 1988 as well. I think after the event though it
was clear that rules would have to be broken in the future to get 'world
class' results.

It is almost impossible to account for the leaps in performance in the
last few years based on aerodynamics and improved training, coaching,
nutrition etc.

There's not much money in pursuit or even track racing, but if anything
it is indicative on the trend that must exist on the road.

I'm starting to ramble... the bottom line is that I have gone from no
knowledge to almost absolute certainty that doping in one form or
another is required to compete at the elite level and that the UCI is
powerless.

Cycling is not alone in this. It is happening anywhere fame and fortune
are the rewards of performance.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Kurgan Gringioni]

"never_doped" > wrote in message
...
>
> My bias was none until about 4 weeks ago when I started doing some
> research on the subject.




Goddamm.


That makes you a doping expert.

[Kurgan Gringioni]

"never_doped" > wrote in message
...
> There might be 10 people or less in the world that would have what is
> known as 'actual knowledge' on whether LA is doping or not. Even then
> actual knowledge and eyewitnesses aren't as reliable as we'd like
> them to be.
>
> (Daniel Shacter has written an extensive amount on the process of memory
> and thought formation, "Seven Sins of Memory" is a good start if you're
> interested)
>
> It all comes down to belief for the rest of us. Just like a
> religious argument.


<snip>


You are correct, it is just a belief.


You are presenting your belief as something else.

[never_doped]

At least it looks like you're reading finally.

Do you understand the argument? It's not Just Lance, it's
EVERY****INGONE and the UCI is complicit.

Where do you think they get their money from?

Carl Lewis never tested positive even though he was one of the premier
athletes in the world and was tested just as much as Lance.


Wait... correct that....

Lewis: 'Who cares I failed drug test?'

Duncan Mackay Thursday April 24, 2003 The Guardian

Carl Lewis has broken his silence on allegations that he was the
beneficiary of a drugs cover-up, admitting he had tested positive for
banned substances but claiming he was just one of "hundreds" of American
athletes who were allowed to escape bans.

"There were hundreds of people getting off," he said. "Everyone was
treated the same."

Lewis has now acknowledged that he failed three tests during the 1988 US
Olympic trials, which under international rules at the time should have
prevented him from competing in the Seoul games two months later.

The admission is a further embarrassment for the United States Olympic
Committee, which had initially denied claims that 114 positive tests
between 1988 and 2000 were covered up. It will add weight to calls by
leading anti-doping officials and top athletes for an independent
inquiry into the US's record on drug issues.

Last week Dr Wade Exum alleged that a ban imposed on Lewis after
positive tests for three stimulants had been overturned by the USOC when
the athlete said he had ingested them mistakenly in a herbal supplement.

Lewis received only a warning after officials ruled that his positive
tests were due to "inadvertent" use. Some scientists believe the
substances could have been a masking agent for more serious drugs, such
as anabolic steroids.

"The climate was different then," said Lewis. "Over the years a lot of
people will sit around and debate that [the drug] does something.
There really is no pure evidence to show that it does something. It
does nothing."

Lewis, who was arrested in Los Angeles on Monday for suspected
drink-driving which friends say was the result of depression over Exum's
revelations, won the 100 metres gold medal in the 1988 Seoul Olympics
after Canada's Ben Johnson was stripped of the title when he tested
positive for a steroid.

Lewis also won the long jump and finished second in the 200m behind
his training partner Joe DeLoach, also named by Exum as having
escaped a ban.

Johnson has now demanded that Lewis be stripped of his medals from
Seoul, although the International Olympic Committee has no plans to
review the situation because it has a statute of limitation set at
three years.

"Do you expect him to say anything different?" said Lewis. "I mean we're
talking about Ben Johnson. Come on. Let's be realistic."

Lewis, 41, said he was not concerned about the uproar around the world
caused by the revelations. "It's ridiculous. Who cares?" he said. "I did
18 years of track and field and I've been retired five years, and
they're still talking about me, so I guess I still have it."



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Kurgan Gringioni]

"never_doped" > wrote in message
...
> At least it looks like you're reading finally.
>
> Do you understand the argument? It's not Just Lance, it's
> EVERY****INGONE and the UCI is complicit.





Dumbass -


I've stated before that everyone here knows there is a doping problem.
You're beating a dead horse. We've discussed it in hundreds, if not
thousands, of threads.

And no, your example that you use here ****ing sucks balls. Carl Lewis !=
Lance Armstrong.


If you're going to talk about individuals, come with some proof, newbie.
Either that or label your speculation as speculation - you are trying to
implicate someone of doping with rationalizations.

That works for the sport as a whole, but not with individuals.


Goddamm Dumbass. I hate newbs.

[Tom Schulenburg]

"never_doped" > wrote in message
...
> At least it looks like you're reading finally.
>
> Do you understand the argument? It's not Just Lance, it's
> EVERY****INGONE and the UCI is complicit.
>

What I hear you saying is that "everyone is doing it, so Lance must be doing
it." By this logic, you are a doper as well. Time to change your handle.

-T

[warren]

In article >, never_doped
> wrote:

> My thought is that any doping procedure or substance would take an elite
> rider and give them the advantage to beat any other clean elite rider.

Not necessarily. I know clean riders at the very top of masters racing
who beat lots of guys who cheat.

> Since we know that the majority are doping then it is only reasonable to
> assume that you must dope to beat them.

We don't "know" either of these two things.

> Lance supporters will point to his training intensity and discipline but
> even this can't be accomplished without doping IMO.

He's only 10-15% faster than you and that could certainly be done with
more accurate training, more committment to the goals, and better
genetics. When I was 37 years old Nothstein won the Olympics and was
only 11% faster than me. So how much of that was because he took drugs,
and how much was age difference, genetics, more accurate training, and
committment to his goals?

> A lot of people will point to 'ego' as an offense to why someone would
> believe that the rest of the riders are doping. This is not the case
> with me. As an example, I believe that Carl Sundquist was a more
> consistant faster rider than me, but at the same time I believed that on
> a good day I could beat him.

So what? What if Carl had the kind of training advice and support the
guys on Mapei and Motorola got? Hampsten was almost certainly clean
when he beat everybody at the Giro. Same with Julich at the Tour when
he got third.

> It is almost impossible to account for the leaps in performance in the
> last few years based on aerodynamics and improved training, coaching,
> nutrition etc.

What "leaps"? Surely you don't think the 1-5% improvements in the last
five years can't be done with access to the factors you mentioned.

> I'm starting to ramble... the bottom line is that I have gone from no
> knowledge to almost absolute certainty that doping in one form or
> another is required to compete at the elite level and that the UCI is
> powerless.

You need more knowledge about what is "required" to compete at the
elite level. Some guys simply have better genetics, training advice,
and committment than you had 15 years ago.

-WG

[never_doped]

Ex-professionals that are a lot more qualified than me are on the record
stating exactly what I am saying. I mentioned when questioned on my
performance record that it had little to do to add to the validity of
the argument.

The reason I wouldn't suspect Carl is because his performance was
consistant and he was not around the same coaches that we later
learned were dismissed from USCF and/or settled out of court in the
junior cases.

Andy Hampsten is on the record for dropping out of cycling for being
unable to compete once the doping became prevalent. He is also very
clear about doping. His Giro win and all of his Coors Classic work were
before EPO.


AH
************************************************** *
The following are some selected quotes from and interview with Andy
Hampsten by Kenny Pryde that appears in the January 4, 1997 edition
of Cycling Weekly. "...When I was riding testosterone was about the
worst and most sophisticated substance that was being abused, now
there are four or five including EPO. I don't think I could do it
anymore, even if I had the form I had five years ago--it still
wouldn't be good enough." "It was so frustrating getting a kicking
from guys in the spring Classics but Max (Testa) would tell me he
knew what preparations these riders were on and they wouldn't go
well in the warmer weather." " Icouldn't be tempted by EPO, although
I thought alot about the implications......I can look back now with
satisfaction on what i acheived and i can be happy about the way I
did it. If I had taken drugs then it would have ruined it for me."
"In the end I really resented the fact that my job was getting a lot
tougher, partly because of the use of EPO and human growth hormone.
If guys are better than you then fair enough. I never had a problem
with that. But I resented the fact that some riders were giving me a
hard time after a visit to the chemist. In the end though, I just
followed my little dream."
************************************************** *

Armstrong's comments are conflicting.

Repeat of earlier post:

************************************************** **
From the Walsh article:

__________________________________________________
_ Armstrong knows of the case and understands the implications.

Has your coach Chris Carmichael made any settlement with Greg Strock?

"Ask Greg or Chris," says Armstrong.

Didn't Chris explain whether he did or didn't?

"No."

Didn't you ask him?

"As far as I am concerned, it was a case between Greg and his coach,
Rene Wenzel."

What if Carmichael had made a settlement, would that not be a shock?

"Would I be shocked? I haven't even thought about it."


More on Carmichael/Wenzel

(from velonews.com) In the response filed with the court, Wenzel also
names the other coach who was allegedly present in a hotel room with him
and Strock in Spokane, Washington, in August of 1990. While conceding
that he accompanied Strock to the room occupied by then-U.S. national
coach Chris Carmichael, Wenzel said the two did not go to the room for
an injection of "extract of cortisone," or a performance-enhancing drug,
as was alleged in Strock's suit.

"Mr. Wenzel admits that Mr. Carmichael had a briefcase from which he
produced a vitamin injection," but added that the injection was made at
Strock's request.

When contacted by VeloNews, Carmichael said he had "no recollection
of an alleged incident that happened more than 10 years ago." When
asked if he had ever been contacted in the case by Strock or his
attorneys, Carmichael said that he didn't care to comment on any
aspect of the matter beyond noting that he didn't recall the alleged
incident in question.

Apparently later Chris remembered the incident well enough to make an
out of court settlement to Strock. Of course if you injected 100's of
riders 1000's of times there would be no reason that one single
injection would stand out of what was a routine.


__________________________________________________


2. Any involvement with Eddie B almost always suspect.

(This is not to say that simply riding for or under Eddie B is the same
as a positive test. There are many riders that rode for him and had the
same or slightly better performances during that time. It is the
combination of out of range deviations and the coaching connection that
raises flags. )

We know that Eddie championed Eastern European methods to get our
incredible results in the 1980's. These methods filtered down to all
levels of coaching at the OTC and remain entrenched.

Steve Hegg admits the 1984 blood boosting (not prohibited then) and the
rides in relative obscurity for almost 6 years until he reunite with
Eddie under the Subaru-Montgomery flag and has his 1990 performances.

Many other well known riders came out of this period and time and are
also suspect. Judge for yourself.


3. Lance has a history of playing stupid or naive when questioned about
specifics:

From the Walsh article:
__________________________________________________
__


So we speak of Lance Armstrong and Michele Ferrari. Did you ever visit
Dr Ferrari?

"I did know Michele Ferrari."

How did you get to know him?

"When you go to races, you see people. I know every team's doctor. It's
a small community."

Did you ever visit Ferrari?

"Have I been tested by him, gone there and consulted on certain
things? Perhaps."

Sources close to the investigation of Ferrari are more precise about
Armstrong's relationship with the doctor. They tell of a series of
visits by the rider to Ferrari's practice at Ferrara in northern Italy:
two days in March 1999, three days in May 2000, two days in August 2000,
one day in September 2000 and three days in late April/early May of this
year. While he was in Ferrara, Armstrong stayed at the five-star Hotel
Duchessa Isabella and at the four-star Hotel Annunziata.
__________________________________________________
__

After this interview was published Lance's 'perhaps' became this
statement:

"For many years now, dating back to 1990, Chris Carmichael has been my
coach and most important technical and training advisor. Others who work
with Chris include Johan Bruyneel, my director sportif, John Cobb, in
charge of aerodynamics, Dr. Luis del Moral, our team physician and Jeff
Spencer my chiropractor.

Also included are my close friends, former Belgian champion Eddy Merckx
and former Motorola team director Jim Ochowitz.

Chris and I met Michele Ferrari during a training camp in San Diego,
California, in 1995. His primary role has always been limited. Since
Chris cannot be in Europe on an ongoing basis, Michele does my
physiological testing and provides Chris with that data on a regular
basis. Chris has grown to trust Michele's opinion regarding my testing
and my form on the bike. And lately, we have been specifically working
on a run at the hour record. I do not know exactly when I will do that,
only that I will in the near future.

He has also consulted with Chris and me on dieting, altitude
preparation, hypoxic training and the use of altitude tents, which are
all natural methods of improvements.

In the past, I have never denied my relationship with Michele Ferrari.
On the other hand, I have never gone out of my way to publicize it. The
reason for that is that he has had a questionable public reputation due
to the irresponsible comments he made in 1994 regarding EPO.

I want to make it clear that I do not associate myself with those
remarks or, for that matter, with anyone who utilizes unethical sporting
procedures. However, in my personal experience I have never had occasion
to question the ethics or standard of care of Michele. Specifically, he
has never discussed EPO with me and I have never used it.

I have always been very clear on the necessity of cycling to be a clean
sport and I have firmly stated that anyone, including me, who tests
positive for banned substances should be severely punished.

As everyone knows, I am one of the very few riders who have no
prescriptions in my health book. I have been repeatedly tested during my
career including during the entire 1999 and 2000 Tours de France and
most recently during the Tour de Suisse ten days ago.
__________________________________________________
__

3a. More naiveness:

Walsh:

Ferrari is accused of treating riders with EPO, the drug that increases
the blood's oxygen-carrying red cells and enhances the rider's
endurance. For most humans, red cells account for 43% or 44% of the
total blood volume, a measure known as the haematocrit level. To counter
the abuse of EPO, the authorities now ban riders whose haematocrit
exceeds 50%. The Sunday Times has seen pages from Livingston's file at
Ferrari's office. The readings for his blood parameters are unusual. In
December 1997 Livingston's haematrocrit is recorded at 41.2%. Seven
months later, a few days before the start of the 1998 Tour de France,
Livingston's haematrocrit is 49.9%. Such a variation in a seven-month
period is uncommon.

Did you know Kevin was linked with the doping investigation?

"Yes."

Did you talk with him about it?

"No."

Never?

"No. You keep coming up with all these side stories. I can only comment
on Lance Armstrong. I don't speak for others."

This was your best friend?

"But I don't meddle in their business."

On the Actovegin discovery despite being widely reported, Lance has
problems stating the name of the substance:

"I will say that the substance on people's minds, Activ-o-something is
new to me. Before this ordeal I had never heard of it, nor had my
teammates."


4. Lance's own statements on doping:

When asked point blank about whether he has ever used performance
enhancing drugs.

"The only thing I can say is that I never tested positive or was ever
caught for anything."

When asked about other cyclists guilty of doping:

"For me, once they have served their time, I look at them all as
clean riders."

(Try that the next time your girlfriend asks if you've ever cheated on
her. "Well sweetie, the only thing I can say is that you've never caught
me and if you ever did as long as I didn't do it again it's OK." Better
buy that subscribtion to Playboy now.)


5. Other professionals implicating Lance under oath and at their
own jeopardy:

Simeoni is suing Armstrong for a symbolic amount when Armstrong called
Simeoni 'a liar' based on his testimony in the Ferrari trial.

Simeoni appears to be honest despite the cost to his own reputation and
career. Simeoni had to serve a suspension as the result of his own
honesty and openness.

Some note on Simeoni:

Simeoni told Soprani he worked with Ferrari between October 1996 and
July 1997 and alleges Ferrari advised him how to dodge the tests for
blood thickness, intended to restrict the use of EPO.

In one of his diaries Simeoni wrote: "Doctor Ferrari advised me to use
two alternatives: Hemagel [a blood thinning agent] on the morning of the
control, albumin [an element contained in white blood cells] on the
evening before a possible control."

(these procedures assist getting below detectable limits for HGH and
EPO)

Simeoni, who won four races last year, said Ferrari had not warned him
about possible side-effects and that he stopped working with him
because he felt Ferrari was giving preferential treatment to others.
"Ferrari did not treat me with the same efficiency he showed to other
athletes," he said.


Simeoni on Armstrong:

"I'm determined to take this all the way. I decided to start legal
action against Armstrong because he told lies about me.

"I did my duty as a citizen and told the truth during the Ferrari trial.
I was suspended from racing and humiliated in front of everybody and
don't deserve to be called a liar by Armstrong."

Voet: "I know from an inside source that Armstrong uses more than a
dozen products on medical prescription." Of course there's lots of stuff
to be found in teams' bins. And in Lance's particular case that might
even be more evident .
************************************************** **


Since we are now in the ****ing contest part of the discussion I would
not consider 11% even in the same field in any elite performance esp in
sprinting. A second over 200m is huge! The difference between the last
placed finisher and LA in the TDF was only 6%. The difference between
the 2000 Worlds 4000m qualifying was only 5%. The difference between my
best times and other pursuiters bests excluding Heggs doped run) in 1988
was less than 3% and some training periods beat theirs. More than
anything I think I peaked too early and may have been overtrained. In
the end though, I just followed my little dream. : )



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[warren]

In article >, never_doped
> wrote:

> Andy Hampsten is on the record for dropping out of cycling for being
> unable to compete once the doping became prevalent. He is also very
> clear about doping. His Giro win and all of his Coors Classic work were
> before EPO.

We know, but there were plenty of other drugs being used then (now
there are better tests to detect them and their use has been reduced)
and Andy still beat the guys who were cheating, in part because he had
good genetics, very good training advice, and good committment.

> Since we are now in the ****ing contest part of the discussion I would
> not consider 11% even in the same field in any elite performance esp in
> sprinting. A second over 200m is huge!

So is many minutes in a 40K TT. My point was that large differences
don't have to be because of drugs.

> The difference between the last
> placed finisher and LA in the TDF was only 6%. The difference between
> the 2000 Worlds 4000m qualifying was only 5%. The difference between my
> best times and other pursuiters bests excluding Heggs doped run) in 1988
> was less than 3% and some training periods beat theirs. More than
> anything I think I peaked too early and may have been overtrained.

You help make my point. You claim that you were within 3% of the best
but you can't believe the faster guys could do that with more accurate
training, more committment and better genes than you. I'm not surprised
at all that a full-time racer with better coaching than you had, and
perhaps better genetics could be AT LEAST 3% faster than you. And Lance
is only 6% better than a D2.5 pro? I guess those same factors can't
account for that difference either?

-WG

[Kiem Madvanen]

"Callistus Valerius" > wrote in message >...

Die.

[Dashi Toshii]

"never_doped" > wrote in message
...
> Ex-professionals that are a lot more qualified than me are on the record
> stating exactly what I am saying. I mentioned when questioned on my
> performance record that it had little to do to add to the validity of
> the argument.
>
> The reason I wouldn't suspect Carl is because his performance was
> consistant and he was not around the same coaches that we later
> learned were dismissed from USCF and/or settled out of court in the
> junior cases.

What do your suspicions have to do with anything?

If you have evidence/proof that Lance was doping, provide it, or else wait
before posting again until you can.

Dashii

[Ewoud Dronkert]

On 8 Aug 2003 07:34:03 +0950, never_doped wrote:
> Carl Lewis: "Who cares?"

That sums it up.

[Ilan Vardi]

warren > wrote in message >...
> In article >, never_doped
> > wrote:
>
> You have mentioned lots of what's called "guilt by association" and
> weak innuendo but absolutely nothing close to proof of any wrongdoing
> by Lance or Chris Carmichael.

Not to mention being an anonymous accuser.

-ilan

[warren]

In article >, Carl Sundquist
> wrote:

> "never_doped" > wrote in message
> >
> > The reason I wouldn't suspect Carl is because his performance was
> > consistant and he was not around the same coaches that we later
> > learned were dismissed from USCF and/or settled out of court in the
> > junior cases.
> >
>
> Then I guess you would be surprised to know that I attended Wenzel's
> wedding. He was not my coach, but he and his wife were and still are my
> friends, even though I haven't seen them in about 6 years.


Which further makes my point that just because somebody is your coach
or friend doesn't mean that you (the racer) will subscribe to ALL of
the possible methods of performance enhancement that may be known by
that coach or friend. The rider can choose not to cheat but still get
valuable advice from someone like Ferrari.

-WG

[Kurgan Gringioni]

"warren" > wrote in message
...

> So what? What if Carl had the kind of training advice and support the
> guys on Mapei and Motorola got? Hampsten was almost certainly clean
> when he beat everybody at the Giro. Same with Julich at the Tour when
> he got third.




The year Julich got third, it seemed like his entire team was doped.


But that is only speculation.

[warren]

In article >, Lindsay
> wrote:

> On 7 Aug 2003 16:47:06 +0950, never_doped >
> wrote:
>
> >When I was racing < 3.8% fat, a relative VO2 max of 68, the ability to
> >tolerate blood lactate > 17mml, the second highest absolute VO ever
> >tested at the OTC according to the physiologists (behind Andy Paulin)
> >and a resting heart rate of 28.
> >
> >I could pursuit in the 4:40's, and had a 52:37 40K without aero
> >equipment.
> >
> >I won 6 state championships, 1 silver and was in 3 national
> >championships and 1 Olympic Trials. I worked 40 hours a week the entire
> >time I was training to support my cycling.
> >
> >Until I went to the Nats I had won every Time Trial I entered.
> >
> >I also won a few decent road races or placed well in them as long as
> >they didn't get too hilly. Though they don't count I also won more
> >than a dozen centuries before I got a license against licensed riders
> >and teams.
> >
> >More than being proud of my record I am proud that I never doped a
> >single substance. I would rather get 10th or 17th honestly that to win a
> >gold dishonestly. Others will do anything to win, risk health or
> >reputation. I could have taken EPO and had easy access to it but never
> >did. It is just a personal preference.
>
> You sound like the whiners who still think they could'a should'a
> would'a if only they had been doped too. Since others were beating
> you and making it to the Olympics they had to be doped.
>
> You are a whiner and a slack ass, regardless of what you won.
>
> Loser.
>
> Dumb ass. ;-)

In spite of all he's said lately (which by the way, most of us read
about a long time ago), anybody that can get themselves to the level he
was at (clean) should get a little more respect than you and some other
people give him.

So Lindsay, if you think he's a slack ass and he was faster than you
ever were what does that make you?

-WG

[Kurgan Gringioni]

"warren" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > Loser.
> >
> > Dumb ass. ;-)
>
> In spite of all he's said lately (which by the way, most of us read
> about a long time ago), anybody that can get themselves to the level he
> was at (clean) should get a little more respect than you and some other
> people give him.




I don't care how fast someone is - if they can't accept the idea that
someone better than them isn't doped, then they are a loser.

[never_doped]

From everything I can tell and have written about 1988, my results and
those that beat me are on the level. It was unfortunate that I posted
any results at all as it neither adds to or takes away from the argument
and only leaves me open to personal attack and being ID'd. I have no
reason to be bitter as I did my best and did it cleanly. I would like to
take my own record out of the argument. Individuals that have never rode
could analyze the data and understand the issue just as well.

At the time the bigger inequities existed in the selection and political
processes. Frey, Bostick, Sundquist all experienced this despite being
well qualified.

As disturbing as the coaches preferences were was also the actual way
the trials were held. There was a clear window of calm winds in the
9:45-11:15 period at Alkek. All of the long team were placed in this
period despite the rule book clearing stating that they should have rode
last. Those that rode after 12:00 experienced vicous winds and heat.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[warren]

In article >, never_doped
> wrote:

> From everything I can tell and have written about 1988, my results and
> those that beat me are on the level. It was unfortunate that I posted
> any results at all as it neither adds to or takes away from the argument
> and only leaves me open to personal attack and being ID'd.

I only asked about your experience to see if you were anywhere near the
top where drugs alone can be the difference between winning and losing.
The reason I asked who was coaching you was to see if you could have
had better coaching, and yes you could have. And you mentioned that you
worked alot, which is another reason you weren't among the very best.
Now if you had the very best coach, 100% committment to the goal,
genetics like Armstrong and others who are almost that gifted, and you
still couldn't be the best, I'd be more likely to believe that doping
was why you didn't make it to the top. As it was, you were within a few
% in spite of all these handicaps I think those handicaps could explain
the difference.


> At the time the bigger inequities existed in the selection and political
> processes. Frey, Bostick, Sundquist all experienced this despite being
> well qualified.
>
> As disturbing as the coaches preferences were was also the actual way
> the trials were held. There was a clear window of calm winds in the
> 9:45-11:15 period at Alkek. All of the long team were placed in this
> period despite the rule book clearing stating that they should have rode
> last. Those that rode after 12:00 experienced vicous winds and heat.

There have been many discussions here in RBR in the past about
inequities during the selection process and you won't get any argument
that this is not a big problem.

Related to this, Marty Nothstein had some harsh words about the recent
performance by the US track riders at the Worlds. He also seems to
think his win in NYC was a bit more important than it really was. His
comments are at the VeloNews website.

-WG