Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

RonK wrote:So, Armstrong has cheated me yet again.

First by doping to win the TDF 7 times.

Now by refusing to face the evidence against him that he did indeed win by doping.

I was once one of your biggest fans Mr Armstrong. Now I think you are a lying, cheating mongrel.

Well, if it makes you feel any better, Ron, they were pretty much all "on the juice".

il padrone wrote: So in a couple of sentences you just trash the whole history of the TdF and pro-cycling generally . Merckx, Anquetil, LeMond, Fignon, Hinault, Indurain, Ulrich.... all on the juice ??

Not at all - until quite recent times the cyclists were always the bunnies and subject to all the pressures and directions of the people who paid their bills. In fact I recently defended Merckx on this or the BNV forum when someone tarred him with the same brush you would if say Evans tested positive tomorrow, precisely because the world was a different place back then and we cannot reasonably apply current standards (and judgements) to past practices in pro-cycling, certainly not back too far beyond the Festina affair of the late 90s (?).

The fact is that PEDs have been around a long time, from when the 'drugs' were everyday things like caffeine, even strychnine in careful doses, and amphetamines with all their attendant hazards. These concoctions were rarely administered by qualified medical people, rather they were the recipes of team masseurs and soigneurs, and cunning team managers.

In the modern era (70s onwards?) these old-fashioned methods declined, as drugs and processes were deliberately and specifically developed to enhance sports performance. This is where the whole she-bang went pear-shaped in my view, with authorities slow to catch on and cyclists being bamboozled by the 'professionalism' of teams with real doctors on staff. What could possibly go wrong??

The difference now is that cyclists are more willing (and able) to speak out against the systematic use of drugs in sport, and of course the testing for PEDs has become accepted and the incentives to stay clean are greater than to take PEDs, in my opinion. Sport in general, and cycling in particular, has worked pretty hard in recent years to establish a new 'norm' that is PED free, and I reckon we should be optimistic about the future.

Personally I'll be happy enough if I never hear or read another whiney, sooky word from Armstrong - he is the last (I hope) of the great sporting dinosaurs.

il padrone wrote:

cyclotaur wrote: Because there really was no pre-PED period - it was a problem that grew gradually from the classic 'bombs' given to the earliest competitors in the sport (and I mean the earliest...) to a fully-blown, pharmaceutical-backed system of team and individual performance enhancement.

So what you are watching now is actually what you think you were watching at an earlier time. NOW is the best and the cleanest we've ever had, and that's why I feel better tonight than I did this morning.

So in a couple of sentences you just trash the whole history of the TdF and pro-cycling generally . Merckx, Anquetil, LeMond, Fignon, Hinault, Indurain, Ulrich.... all on the juice ??

OK, well that just destroys any faith (and interest) in the concept of cycle-sport competition. And there is no reason to believe that anything is different, despite the urgent proclamations of how "clean" the sport is now. Why should any fans care now?

[edit] Anyway, maybe time we merged this thread with the one that already exists??

From wikipedia- "Merckx has condemned doping but he tested positive three times. The first time was in the 1969 Giro d'Italia where he tested positive for the stimulant Reactivan at Savona, after leading the race through 16 stages. He was expelled from the Giro." He denied any wrongdoing in that instance but the other two occasions he tested positive he admitted to it.

Fignon admitted to doping. And Ullrich was convicted of doping.

ldrcycles wrote:

il padrone wrote:

cyclotaur wrote: Because there really was no pre-PED period - it was a problem that grew gradually from the classic 'bombs' given to the earliest competitors in the sport (and I mean the earliest...) to a fully-blown, pharmaceutical-backed system of team and individual performance enhancement.

So what you are watching now is actually what you think you were watching at an earlier time. NOW is the best and the cleanest we've ever had, and that's why I feel better tonight than I did this morning.

So in a couple of sentences you just trash the whole history of the TdF and pro-cycling generally . Merckx, Anquetil, LeMond, Fignon, Hinault, Indurain, Ulrich.... all on the juice ??

OK, well that just destroys any faith (and interest) in the concept of cycle-sport competition. And there is no reason to believe that anything is different, despite the urgent proclamations of how "clean" the sport is now. Why should any fans care now?

[edit] Anyway, maybe time we merged this thread with the one that already exists??

From wikipedia- "Merckx has condemned doping but he tested positive three times. The first time was in the 1969 Giro d'Italia where he tested positive for the stimulant Reactivan at Savona, after leading the race through 16 stages. He was expelled from the Giro." He denied any wrongdoing in that instance but the other two occasions he tested positive he admitted to it.

Fignon admitted to doping. And Ullrich was convicted of doping.

True - but the only one in strident denial is Armstrong, and it makes him look like a goose.

familyguy wrote:How does accepting a lifetime ban work in his favour? He cant compete in any ITU/US sanctioned tri's now, is that right?

My understanding is that he will not be able to compete in ANY sport that is a signatory to the WADA. And my further understanding is that that cuts you him out of triathetics as well as a host of/many/more others.

Why has Armstrong been given a lifetime ban, whereas Contador (and others) have had a 2 year ban.... which was even backdated IIRC ??

clackers wrote:Well, if it makes you feel any better, Ron, they were pretty much all "on the juice".

Sorry, but I choose not to believe that...

Methinks this will prove very bad for cycling.

Not the sport as such, making it as clean as humanly possible can only be a good thing.
It's the non sporting side, recreational and utility. Once mainstream media starts to wheel out the whole guilt by association BS the mouthbreathers will have yet another excuse to treat us like crap.

I give it less than a week before one of us wears !! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !! because of this.

RonK wrote:

clackers wrote:Well, if it makes you feel any better, Ron, they were pretty much all "on the juice".

Sorry, but I choose not to believe that...

But what does the evidence say?

__PG__ wrote:

RonK wrote:

clackers wrote:Well, if it makes you feel any better, Ron, they were pretty much all "on the juice".

Sorry, but I choose not to believe that...

But what does the evidence say?

Evidence is starting to emerge that the whole LA witch hunt has been bankrolled by al-Qaeda in a well coordinated plan to blacken the reputation of not just an American sporting hero, but of professional cycling competition in the whole of Western civilization.

http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/08/its-no ... e-jerseys/

Jim

__PG__ wrote:

RonK wrote:

clackers wrote:Well, if it makes you feel any better, Ron, they were pretty much all "on the juice".

Sorry, but I choose not to believe that...

But what does the evidence say?

The evidence says that a few of the hundreds of professional cyclists are cheats.

I'm not naive enough to think that none of this Aussies are dopers, but the casual proposition that "they are all going it" is simply too much to accept.
Do you believe McEwen, O'Grady, Rogers, Evans, for example are "all doing it".

Show me the evidence that they are "all doing it".

RonK wrote:The evidence says that a few of the hundreds of professional cyclists are cheats.

Have a read of this - especially over the past 5-10 years

RonK wrote:I'm not naive enough to think that none of this Aussies are dopers, but the casual proposition that "they are all going it" is simply too much to accept.
Do you believe McEwen, O'Grady, Rogers, Evans, for example are "all doing it".

I really don't know but am beginning to wonder

il padrone wrote:

RonK wrote:The evidence says that a few of the hundreds of professional cyclists are cheats.

Have a read of this - especially over the past 5-10 years

RonK wrote:I'm not naive enough to think that none of this Aussies are dopers, but the casual proposition that "they are all going it" is simply too much to accept.
Do you believe McEwen, O'Grady, Rogers, Evans, for example are "all doing it".

I really don't know but am beginning to wonder

That reference has already been posted on BNA.

Considering that over the period reported the ranks of pro cyclists would number in the thousands, it's scarcely evidence that they are "all doing it".

No doubt it is a bitter pill for Americans to swallow. I can only image how it might feel if it emerged that Robbie McEwen or Stuart O'Grady ever doped.

Words being twisted slightly there aren't they? Wasn't the original statement, "They WERE all on the juice", referring to the 90s-00s, not 'they ARE all on it'.

Naive as I may be, I believe in Armstrong. How many times do you have to defend yourself? I would of told them to go f*&k themselves a long time ago!!

As for the Aussies, Cadel is proof you don't need to dope to be a winner. O'Grady is an out and out hardman, have loved following his career, one man I would like to have a beer with.

il padrone wrote:

RonK wrote:The evidence says that a few of the hundreds of professional cyclists are cheats.

Have a read of this - especially over the past 5-10 years

WOW there is a pattern there.

Of course there are shades of grey in the umbrella word "doping" and caffeine and salbutemol are at the mildest end of the spectrum.
EPO use is debatably the hugest problem because it is much more difficult to test for than other substances such as amphetamines, steroids etc

The interesting thing is that caffeine is an "acceptable" performance-enhancing substance to be detected because many drinks contain caffeine.
It is a much less potent stimulant than amphetamines.
But of course some people are going to go overboard on caffeine - such as take potentially harmful doses of caffeine in tablet form.
Similarly salbutemol is the active ingredient of the asthma puffers - many people in any community legitimately use these at therapeutic doses.
Clenbuterol is similar to salbutemol but for some reason has never been marketed in australia as a medication for asthma so we do not see it here.

More of a worry are more potent medically prescribed amphetamine-like stimulants such as ADHD drugs and some weight loss drugs
Particularly the former are becoming fashionable medications in Australia ( just following the north american trend )
Sooner or later an australian athlete is going to test positive for these drugs and will try to use the "prescribed for medical reasons" excuse.
AFAIK ADHD drugs would be on the banned list for sport but with increasing community use of these substances an athlete might try to challenge or mitigate a "conviction" on medical grounds ?

ldrcycles wrote:Words being twisted slightly there aren't they? Wasn't the original statement, "They WERE all on the juice", referring to the 90s-00s, not 'they ARE all on it'.

You are splitting hairs (semantic arguments are an LA speciality), but feel free to substitute my "are" with "were" wherever it appears.

Just read the following:

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout ... 28072.html

Not sure but I think this might feel a little hollow...

Armstrong will likely be stripped of his seven Tour de France titles, despite the fact that he passed every test given to him at that time. Fine. If it happens, the logical victor of the 2005 Tour is Cadel Evans. Evans finished 8th in the part of the race in which people actually pedaled, but the seven riders in front of him are all proven cheats. Congrats to Cadel.

Nads wrote:Naive as I may be, I believe in Armstrong. How many times do you have to defend yourself?

Only once, but he's elected not to.

Mulger bill wrote:Methinks this will prove very bad for cycling.

..snip...

+1

What we believe or don't believe is irrelevant.

His tests have been negative. Tests by bodies who are doing their utmost to look for traces of this stuff.

And its on the record he has submitted himself to hundreds of tests.

If we use the same twisted logic across the board then every rider who returns a negative result , should actually be considered guilty of using PED , because that is the logic some would like to apply to Armstrong. That makes no sense to me at all.

Why should some be declared innocent and others guilty even if the results of screening are identical? Negative means negative doesn't it ?? For everybody.

fthills wrote:Negative means negative doesn't it ?? For everybody.

Tell that to Basso and Ullrich, neither of whom ever tested positive.

[quote="RonK"
Tell that to Basso and Ullrich, neither of whom ever tested positive.[/quote]

My memory of this is sketchy:

Didn't Basso admit to taking them or was planning to take them to the Italian olympic committee?

And wasn't Ullrich's DNA found on bags of blood in his team doctor's office ?

I'm most probably wrong with both of these .

fthills wrote:
My memory of this is sketchy:

Didn't Basso admit to taking them or was planning to take them to the Italian olympic committee?

And wasn't Ullrich's DNA found on bags of blood in his team doctor's office ?

I'm most probably wrong with both of these .

Basso confessed to 'conspiracy to dope'

He had his DNA matched with bags of blood being held by Dr Fuentes (the main player in operacion puerto)

Most people joined the dots with some of Basso's past performances and blood doping given Dr Fuentes had been in action for a long time. But a smoking gun, it was not.