There is a new story circulating today that a former assistant—Paul
Never.—Mark
Re: Armstrong doping question
2 Apr 2005 17:49:21 -0800
"bikeguy11968" <bikeguy11...@yahoo.com>

This is a toughie. Turd density drugs aside. Looking at the recent balco scandal... That’s a tough one. Look at recent findings in gene therapy. More tough ones. The honest truth I believe is that is is very possible for him to be on something that people just don’t know about now and test for. Yes he is the most tested athlete on the planet. What does that really mean? He is NOT failing tests for the drugs we know about. It doesn’t mean that he isn’t taking something that we DON"T know about however. And to be fair, I don’t think that he is the only one doped up in the peloton. I think that there are lots of guys doing lots of stuff, and many of them aren’t getting caught either. HGH has been around for decades, and only now is there a reliable test for it? How can you test for something you don’t know about? It’s like going to a parking lot, to find a red car, but not knowing what the color red looks like..

Let’s look at the facts.

-Lots of riders coming forward after racing to say "doping is rife in the sport". I don’t think that anyone will deny those allegations. There is a widespread doping problem in cycling. -Lance was an otherwise healthy elite athlete in his early 20’s that was diagnosed with serious cancer.

Now we believe that there is a doping problem in cycling. yes? And we can assume that the doping problem extends to the best cyclists in the world. Yes? (It would be moronic to think otherwise.. "Only the loser domestiques are doping.. all the GC favourites are totally clean..." Yeah.. right. doesn’t make any sense.) Now are we supposed to believe that the racer that fought his way back from death is better than everyone else in the world that is doping? Without doping himself.. I dunno..

Next, test are developed for drugs like EPO, etc etc. Are we to assume that everyone goes "ah drat. I’m fucked. No more doping for me.. " Yeah right. Sure there are the morons that attempt to use the "rhythm method" and time everything right, but I’m certain that when faced with the realistic options of losing ones job, etc or finding a new way to dope, they will find a new way to dope.

I don’t know why people have to just believe that he is totally clean. Yes the cancer angle is touching, and if it’s legit it is one of sports greatest stories. But people do have a tonne of blind faith regarding this issue, and I’m just not so certain. Again, I don’t think he’s the only one by any stretch of the imagination that is doing something, but he’s definitely the highest profile.—bikeguy11968

Why do you have to assume that Lance is using anything? Just surviving cancer like he did puts him in an elite category. Pushing himself to race and win may be just stuck in his head that he had to survive cancer in order to accomplish something. An event like that would certainly change most people’s priorities. There is also the chance, however slim, that the chemo he got while being treated for cancer did something to his overall system and gave him an advantage. Maybe he is making more of his own natural HGH and making good use of it. Athletes are far better today not because doping is totally rampant, but because exercise routines have been fine tuned as well as the food they eat and the vitamins that go with it. Should we ban carrots and yams because they have a heavy dose of vitamin A? Staying as far away from things like McDonalds and the like and making your own food can do wonders. No matter where you go to eat out, you are being given heavy doses of salt and other chemicals and fats that are beyond your control. Intelligent nutrition and a well balanced and intensive exercise regimen will work wonders for someone who is already genetically one up on the competition. Bill Baka—bbaka

Even when he was just starting out, he usually was in the front of his competitors. His ability to utilize oxygen is very high. His latic acid threshold is very high. When he went though his cancer treatment, his muscles became very weak. When his muscles rebuilt after the treatments were over, he exercised mostly his legs. If you look at his upper arms and shoulders, you can see they are a bit smaller that the other racers. This gives him the same lower body muscle strength yet about a 5% lower total weight.—mike.a.sch...@gmail.com

Can’t argue with THAT logic! (Of course, the same can be said about every person on earth. Maybe the late Pope John Paul II was on performance-enhancing substances! Just because he never TESTED positive...)

One point from Armstrong’s interview on the Rome show: he said (paraphrasing), "Test my blood; test my urine; hell, keep the samples for 5, 10, 25 years and THEN test ’em. I’m clean."

He also made the point that, after facing near-death due to cancer, he would never jeopardize his health just to gain an athletic edge. Flat out not worth it.

Until proven otherwise, I believe him.

Bill S.—Bill

Why not he reveal his medical record so that we can see what kind of anti-cancer chemo he takes. And he should reveal his personal doctor. Current anti-doping method is not effective. The medial test lab is trying to improve better way to find the doping espcially when you are dealing with the guy know about the drug and the body chemistry. Lance is a trained body chemistist and knows how to get away from the doping than most peopl could. No matter Lance keeps total innocent, there is always a hole to escape.—mmdir2...

 
 
 
 
 
 

as a fellow cancer survivor, i can tell you that he means it. every day is so much more precious once you’ve been that close to death.—Dennis

Here’s the difference: he is innocent until proven guilty. It’s that simple. Your view is that everyone is guilty--and it would be moronic to think otherwise.

What we of the "prove it or shut up" group think is this: we don’t know why people have to just believe that he is totally drugged---without one scintilla of proof. Bring us proof.—Pat

How do we know you’re not a pedophile? There are lots of ’em out there that we don’t know about, after all. Why should we give you the benefit of the doubt instead of just assuming you ARE a pedophile? Better to just let it be known that you are a pedophile since you spend a lot of time on the computer (since other computer users have been found to be pedophiles).

Hope that puts your "logic" in perspective.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles <habcycles.c> Home of the $695 ti frame—Mark