Lemond / Armstrong relationship (was end of interview.)

"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

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.

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!

"Kyle Legate" wrote in message ws.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.

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/20...n/?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.

"Andrew McDonald" wrote in message
om...
"Kyle Legate" wrote in message
ws.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.

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/20...n/?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.

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

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

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/comm...nghistory.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

"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote in message t...
"Andrew McDonald" wrote in message
om...
"Kyle Legate" wrote in message
ws.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.

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/20...n/?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.

In article ,
"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote:

"Andrew McDonald" wrote in message
om...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/riders/20...n/?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?