Mind you, this was all going on while the USAC board was dismantling NORBA...among other tidy facts: USAC president was also UCI presiden'ts stock broker.
Mind you, this was all going on while the USAC board was dismantling NORBA...among other tidy facts: USAC president was also UCI presiden'ts stock broker.
I've barely worn pants since 1999.I bet Mickey is not wearing any pants today.
the plot sickensamong other tidy facts: USAC president was also UCI presiden'ts stock broker.
If I told you that some people - like Armstrong - are hyper-responders to dope, would you still think it's a level playing field? The level playing field argument is just as stupid as the lie itself.I really would love to know what percentage of the road circuit dope. Talking about the high profile riders of course but in my mind, Lance's accomplishments are not diminished as I feel it highly likely that most, if not nearly all the riders that make it to the Tour are partaking. There are just so many being busted that it has to be like cockroaches, for every one you see there are hundreds you don't. So I hear at least.
read tyler hammiltons book. Shed some light on all you could ever want to know on road cycling...I really would love to know what percentage of the road circuit dope. Talking about the high profile riders of course but in my mind, Lance's accomplishments are not diminished as I feel it highly likely that most, if not nearly all the riders that make it to the Tour are partaking. There are just so many being busted that it has to be like cockroaches, for every one you see there are hundreds you don't. So I hear at least.
Partial reason as to why Gwinn switched?You'll notice that one of America's largest bike companies is mentioned in the DOJ documents, for instance.
If I told you that some people - like Armstrong - are hyper-responders to dope, would you still think it's a level playing field? The level playing field argument is just as stupid as the lie itself.
Talented athletes who trained just as hard but who were already near the top of the scale physiologically were pushed out of the sport because doping didn't provide them with as much of an advantage as tools like Armstrong.
We have some fairly reliable competition and testing data on Armstrong's non-doped baseline. He's still world-class, but not as world-class as his results indicated.
Good point on the hyper-responders, I am not aware enough to know if that is the case or not. But really, what is a level playing field when it comes to road cycling sport? I don't mean to be argumentative but there really is no such thing if you start looking at details. Money, the root of it all. With money comes connections, resources, access to tools legal or not that make the field impossible to be level. Drugs are just a part of that. There are legal high altitude simulation trainers, dietitians, mental and physical therapists, etc that when you can combine all, give you more of an advantage than those who can't afford.If I told you that some people - like Armstrong - are hyper-responders to dope, would you still think it's a level playing field? The level playing field argument is just as stupid as the lie itself.
Talented athletes who trained just as hard but who were already near the top of the scale physiologically were pushed out of the sport because doping didn't provide them with as much of an advantage as tools like Armstrong.
We have some fairly reliable competition and testing data on Armstrong's non-doped baseline. He's still world-class, but not as world-class as his results indicated.
and possibly among any other sport too.Scapegoat? He was by and far the worst offender in the decades that doping took place. The doping program he ran was more sophisticated than any before it or since then.
please read tylers book. I know it is one side of the story but it sheds some srs light on dope in the roadie world.He was just another guy in the group and I fear him being made a scapegoat.
the USADA report, based on the testimony of his former teamates and many others.Where are details coming in from regarding the sophistication and hierarchy of this debacle?
yes. ran it, enabled it, enforced it.Did he run it?
Yes, he ran it. And let's make it clear, he wasn't just casually doping to gain an edge. It was a fundamental part of his strategy to win, and win more than anyone else in the history of the tour.Did he run it? I don't know all the details regarding whether he was a user or manufacturer type. I know he was the winningest and that makes him easy to focus on. Where are details coming in from regarding the sophistication and hierarchy of this debacle?
From what I've read, if a rider wasnt willing to dope, they didn't make the team.yes. ran it, enabled it, enforced it.
Sounds like he wanted it the most, and worked the hardest at it, and won in a crowd of other dopers. I say more props to him.Yes, he ran it. And let's make it clear, he wasn't just casually doping to gain an edge. It was a fundamental part of his strategy to win, and win more than anyone else in the history of the tour.
he was just the best funded and the most ruthless d-bag.Sounds like he wanted it the most, and worked the hardest at it, and won in a crowd of other dopers. I say more props to him.
oh you mean how he conveniently made over $100k in donations to the UCI coincidentally right after a positive test occurred (which was conveniently explained away).That changes a lot if true (not doubting you, in fact believe it likely is) but I still want to make sure the focus goes all the way to the top. If that is Lance, fine, but if not don't stop there.
And all 100% fact?he was just the best funded and the most ruthless d-bag.
Yes. Until there are official reports of others that are funded more and bigger d-bags than him, it will remain a fact.And all 100% fact?
i'd say the $30 million of taxpayer money he got from the USPS would indicate so.And all 100% fact?
Kinda,Did he run it?
...and these are only the people who spoke up. Who knows how many others remained silent.For me the doping is only a small part, I can stomach what he did there. What I find completely reprehensible is what he did to innocent people who merely tried to tell the truth. Bullying, intimidation, threats of harm, fincancial and emotional harship. Kathy and Greg LeMond, Emma O'Reilly, David Walsh, Paul Kimmage, Mike Anderson, Betsy and Frank Andreau.
The problem is you can't really embrace it. Yes you can make more stuff legal but you want to make legal even the most dangerous products? Because there will be some people willing to risk their health just to winI pissed some poeple off here a few years back by suggesting that perhaps we should embrace doping. Make it transparent, get it out of backrooms so athletes could be assured the best/safest products. Also, maybe most importantly, so top level athletes don't have to lie and live in constant fear just to be competitive.