Greg LeMond Sour Grapes??

mojomarc

Indeed, they are for short-term usage only.

From http://http://www.mesomorphosis.com...us-ergogens.htm:

"Corticosteroids increase the performance of endurance athletes significantly, by enabling them to keep their blood glucose elevated for longer periods, and by masking the pain of the physical overload on joints and muscles. Specifically speaking, the gluconeogenic activity and lipolytic actions provide the athlete's working muscles with a rich blood supply of energy substrates for going that "extra mile". Additionally, the anti-inflammatory and analgesic activity covers up the discomfort of the massive physical overload. Furthermore, the corticosteroids can have a mild stimulant and euphoric effect on the athlete, charging him up for the event and keeping him or her focused throughout the performance of the grueling task."

That seems like a good explanation why they would be they would be restricted in usage. For the most part, they seem to be used in sports where injuries are common (I remember being injected with a corticosteroid when I was playing hockey to reduce the inflammation of a bad knee sprain), but the legal usage for other types of sports seems to be limited to steroidal skin creams and asthma treatments, as near as I can figure. I'm sure if I'm off a bit, someone will correct me, but this is what I can gather from the descriptions.

Perro Loco

Thanks,
this all does sound plausable. Probably a benifit for short stage races, one day races or occaisonal usage.

gntlmn

It's not going to be any performance benefit if the dosage is not high enough. Armstrong's dosage was too low to have benefited him, according to the doping experts. Conclusion was that it was detectable, but not a violation due to miniscule dosage.

Beastt

True enough, limerickman, but Hamilton's point was that after he started training with Lance his riding ability improved markedly.

After the first year or so of having Heras and Rubiera train with Lance, they became strong enough not to suffer the injuries caused by trying to train with him the first year.

Training harder and more scientifically seems to help all of the riders improve. Lance is meticulous and religious about his training and doesn't allow anyone on the team to whine or snivel their way out of training hard. The first few times team members suggested that the weather was inappropriate for training Armstrong quickly reminded them that if they didn't want to be there, he knew of plenty of other riders who would be happy to take their place.

Paul or Phil, (don't remember which), stated that Lance had climbed l'Alpe d'Huez 15 times in preparation for the Stage 16 time trial this year and that he climbed it 4 times in a single day. Lance later denied the second claim, which was credited to Chris Carmichael, and said that he might have climbed it twice in one day.

Commentary from other Tours has made mention of Lance climbing some of the more difficult mountain stages for training, then leaving the rest of the team at the top while he descended and climbed it again.

Beastt

If you have something that proves Emma is telling the truth, share it with the rest of us. Otherwise, you're just choosing sides to suit yourself and claiming you know something the rest of us don't.

HuckFinn

May be my English is rusted, but I always thought that sentences constructed with 'if' and 'then' should be interpreted as conditional.

The same with sentences beginning with 'in that case'.

Beastt

Perhaps I can offer you the number of a good optometrist. If you think he looks bigger in the B&W photo, then you've got a severe problem with your vision. He certainly looks less toned in the upper body post-cancer.

Check the shadows below his pecs in the running picture against his pecs in the B&W photo. If you can't see that, either you're losing your sight or you've become so biased that you can't even process images properly anymore.

Beastt

If you'll look again, then you'll see that the first sentence begins with "If" but does not contain a "then" as you imply. The "then" is understood. It's grammatically correct.

If <condition> then(implied) <action>.

It's perfectly proper syntax so perhaps your rust theory is accurate.

Secondly, neither of my sentences begins with "in that case". I'm not sure who you think you were quoting but your comments don't match my post so perhaps you clicked on the wrong Reply button.

If you don't believe me then try pasting it into Word and make sure you have the grammar checking option enabled. See? No little, green, wiggly underlines.

Now, if you're finished attempting to attack sentence syntax, perhaps you'd like to reply to the comments?

HuckFinn

In #141 I ment my sentences you were quoting in #140. I did not think it would be necessary to quote them again. I erred.

Beastt

Point taken. I mis-read your post concerning Emma lying, then misunderstood your message concerning the grammatical references.

You have my apology.

paris_boy

Your Lemon should challenge Armstrong to a polygraph test to put the matter to the ending. maybe they could put it on TV like that Trista Ryan wedding. it would make great TV.

craigstanton

Considering that our so-called "Lemon" constantly sings his tune to the French media, I am guessing that the reality show "Paris Boy" suggests would have to premiere in Frogland -- where the appetite for cycling "dirt" is apparently insatiable. Americans actually don't really care about cycling much at all -- despite such overwhelming success in the international scene. As others have pointed out, Armstrong's popularity has as much to do with his star quality, his current girl-friend, and his recovery story as it does with his cycling ability. As someone else has also pointed out, most Americans think a poleton is the Spanish name for a football, but they love their Lance boy.

Saucy

Actually my vision is fine. I'm not sure why you felt the to need to be insulting but that is your problem to work out with your therapist, I suppose.

I admit that I haven't spent a lot of time analyzing Lance's breasts. As far as the shadows caused by his breasts, this can be explained by lighting and angles. Lance certainly looks less "ripped" post-cancer but in terms of bulk and overall size but I still don't see that much of a difference. Its difficult to say based on those photos which are taken at different angles, with different lighting.

It certainly seems like you spend a lot of time looking at Lance's body, his breasts in particular, so I will defer to your expertise in this matter.

Beastt

The muscular portion of a man's upper anterior torso is usually referred to as "pecs" which is short for pectoralis major. I suppose that the word "breast" isn't purely incorrect but it seems an obvious attempt at trying to belittle me. Perhaps you thought you were being funny. If you were entertained by your choice of wording then fine.

Despite the fact that you fail to see the obvious change in bulk, you did finally admit that there is a lot more definition in his pre-cancer days. Definition is the result of toned muscle. Toned muscle is heavier than fat. Are you suggesting that the officials are lying at the pre-race weigh-in so as to comply with what Lance claims regarding his pre/post cancer weights? If so then you'll leave little doubt with most as to your motives and mental processes.

Obviously he's much lighter now and the loss of weight is mostly to the upper torso rather than the legs and pelvis. It doesn't take a premiere cycling coach to tell you how that difference with affect one's riding.