Cry Baby Simeoni

Beastt

Perhaps Ullrich was already doping before he ever entered the sport as a pro. I believe you were the one who posted the opinion of some doctor who stated that an athlete who is doping will perform 10-15% above one who is not, though I'm not sure in what context the 10-15% is quantified.

If such is truly the case then we all saw Ullrich pull away from Armstrong on the Tourmalet in 2003, proving, by your comments, that Ullrich couldn't possibly be clean. We saw him take 1:36 out of Armstrong in Stage 12 of the 2003 Tour de France, even though Armstrong still placed second on the day. Just how does a clean rider do that to one who is doping and has proved himself to be extremely strong? You don't get it both ways. Either they're both doping or neither of them is. Take your pick. Since we don't seem to need solid proof for this discussion, I suppose one choice is as good as the other.

No one has implicated Ullrich? Good! Let me be the first. If he's as close to Armstrong as he usually is and, as you say, Armstrong is probably doping, then certainly, by your own "evidence", Ullrich must also be doping.

I know you and several others can't see this but it's becoming more clear all the time that this is more about Ullrich losing to Armstrong and the feelings certain people have against Armstrong and for Ullrich than it is about performance, palmares or the use of banned substances.

Armstrong wins because he's stronger, more dedicated and a much better tactician.

Miguel_garcia83

why is armstrong stronger? before 1999 everybody knew that he couldnt win the tour of france, because he hadnt qualities to do it, moreover if we take into account that the cancer stopped him for a year and his progression stopped too, how could armstrong improve so much if he was so close to death?? and dont say training because all pro riders train a lot

Ted B

Armstrong was training like a madman while Ullrich was making news for driving drunk and taking ecstasy.

Sometimes the difference between two men is not so much physical as it is mental. Armstrong and Ullrich have very different lifestyles, different mentalities, and definitely different priorities (especially in the off season).

Quite frankly, I believe both of these men are clean. Not one iota of proof exists to the contrary. It is amusing to sit back and watch the naysayers come up with elaborate conspiracy theories.

Ted B

I would advocate that LA is the most driven, most dedicated, most highly motivated man in the sport of cycling. He plans his entire year around the TdF, and other races are simply tune-ups to the event he has won a record 6 times now. He is never visibly out of shape, he has demonstrated an unwavering conviction to the sport, and he has experienced real pain and suffering...far beyond what one experiences on a bike. His preparation for the TdF is unequivocally meticulous. In fact, he is so dedicated to maximizing his talent that the best trainers and technicians in the world are only too eager to contribute to the success of he and his team. And where that is concerned, his team supports their leader like no other team in cycling, and not one of them holds him in anything less than the highest regard. None of the previous 3-5 time winners was so dedicated to winning one event.

I advocate that what this man has done for the sport of cycling is immeasurable, and he has raised the bar by demonstrating a new level of dedication/preparation. He is also a wonderful human being, having given much of his time and resources for a righteous cause. He has authored acclaimed books, which depict very moving accounts of his life, which has been anything but easy. He is admired and respected by virtually everyone who knows him, including virtually every other pro cyclist, trainer, race organizer, and certainly the past greats.

The man has proven himself a champion in every sense of the word. There is not one person in a measly online forum or elsewhere who can prove anything to the contrary.

Beastt

It's no secret that no other rider is reported to train as hard or as diligently as Armstrong. Ever break an arm? When you get the cast off, the arm is withered to a fraction of its former self. But it takes only a few months to get it back to where it was and beyond. Much like being off the bike for an extended period doesn't set you back to where you were when you first started riding. I've seen pre/post pictures of Lance. Have you? He wasn't built like a climber before and didn't climb well as is shown by his abandonment of the Tour in '93 in the mountains.

If you take a cyclist who can't finish the mountain stages and put them on performance enhancing drugs, do you really think the drugs will turn them into an instant Tour winner? I don't recall Virenque ever winning the overall or Millar for that matter.

limerickman

For fear of repeating myself - for me 1992-1996 indicated to me a rider who could perform well in one day races.
I never contradicted his form between 1992-1996 as I believe that he was a one day rider, who simply could not perform at the very highest level in stage
races such as the Dauphine and certainly was incapable of launching a challenge in any of the greand tours, jersey categories in the grand tours.

In 1996 - he diagnosed with cancer.

In 1999, he returns to the TDF and performs at a level which is wholly inconsistent with his 1992-1996.
Questions are asked : how can this be ?
Armstrong replies that 1996-1998 changed him.

He writes two books extolling his reasons for his improvement and they can be summarised as follows :
1.His physique fundamentally altered - he lost weight and muscle.
2.He decided to train harder than before and to dedicate himself fully to the bike.
3.He sacrificed everything necesaary in order to win, guven his close call with
death.

Lots of riders train as hard, if not harder, than Armstrong and they dedicate themselves to winning also.
So essentially, we were left with the weight loss argument - the advantage gained by losing weight and his facing death could be the reason why he
improved.

But I looked back at the 1992-1996 palmares and I read everything i could get my hands on about Lance Armstrong during the period to see if what he was saying in his books was credible.
And that's when I began to see that this bloke is trying to con us here.

David Walsh's "Inside the TDF" about the TDF was published and in it he
interviews LA - see NeoPro chapter.
LA explain to DW that "I never realised just how far the step was from triathlon to professional cycling. Cycling is the toughest sport there is"
"I train like I have never trained before"
"I try to so hard that I sometimes think I can't train any harder"

Cycle Sport 1995 : Dr.Max Testa doctor to Motorola Cycling team
"Lance is a great athlete, albeit a one day cyclist. The tests show that he is
not at Indurain's, Rominger's or Jalabert's level.
This is why he cannot perform in stage races.
I would say that Indurain and Pantani and the others are at a level above Lance"
Asked about LA's prospects Dr Testa says "Overall stage race contention is
not a target at present. His recovery level is excellent and he has a great turn of speed, but he cannot generate the power of an Indurain or Pantani"

Graham Fifes "Inside the Peloton" - "after winning the 1993 stage to Verdun,
Lance Armstrong was physically exhausted - so much so that he was incapable of speaking, never mind getting out of bed.
His fellow Motorola colleagues had to persuade him to continue to try to race "
(he dropped out of the TDF a stage later).

Graham Watson "Lance Armstrong Portrait of a Champion" published June 2004.
Miguel Indurain "when Lance came to the peloton first, we knew he was a good rider. I never thought he was capable of winning a TDF - never mind 5 T's DF.
He has won 5 T'sDF (at the time of writing) but he cannot take my title away from me - I was first to win 5 consecutive T'sDF"
Eddy Merckx "I never thought he could win a TDF..."
I can list all of the other articles as well - but you get the picture.
LA was effectively a good racer but not a real stage race overall winning prospect.

Something altered in 1996-1998 and thereafter.
If people want to accept the excuses given in lA's book fine.

I don't accept his reasoning because I have a full library of Eurosport stage
tapes for the TDF from 1992-1996 and if you compare LA's performance in them with his 1999-2004, there is a world of difference between both
Lance Armstrong's.

I also prefer to take the account of individuals like Dr Testa, Emma O'reilly and Greg LeMond.
None of the people who have come forward stand to gain by telling their
stories about Lance Armstrong.

One this basis I form the opinion that Lance Armstrong is not authentic.

Ted B

Oops, you just fell apart.




Indeed I smell a con here, but it isn't the one of which you speak.

You have not read his books, and this is plainly apparent. You have very little insight into the man as a man.

You are no respected judge of talent, especially of someone whom you do not, have not, and will never work with on a personal level. Even those who are sometimes find themselves eating crow. Dr. Testa was right about one thing however...LA's amazing recovery ability.




That's fine. You are welcome to form an opinion from whatever source you like, including Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Some of us have different sources from which to base our opinion of the man both as a human being and as the champion he is.

Brunswick_kate

Limerick...you're as bloody stubborn and mule-headed as I am....

We can go around and around and around the mulberry bush about this for the next 90 years. It all boils down to a matter of personal values and ethics and the weight each of us places on certain principles of behaviour and conduct. For me, the notion that accusation must be accompanied by evidence is important; mere suspicion is not sufficient to accuse. Not every one accepts this as a principle of personal conduct. So be it...

We will disagree on this forever. Each of us can trot out this quote versus that quote versus this expert versus that expert. It proves nothing. Lance Armstrong cannot prove his innocence...negatives cannot be proven. And so far, no one has proven his guilt. And we can gossip, speculate and carry on to our collective amusement but it still doesn't render any difference to the final analysis. You don't know if Armstrong is doping. I don't know if Armstrong is doping. The only person who knows if Lance Armstrong is doping is Armstrong and so far, he's saying "No".

What we disagree on is the quality of proof required before an allegation is leveled. I think we've pretty much beat this conversation to a stand-still. I'll never convince you to up your standards as to evidentuary requirements; you'll never convince me to lower mine. So let's call a truce and see if we can't find another topic to fight about...this has been just too much fun to completely give up...

So tell, what are your views on global warming? Arsenal's title hopes?

__________________
Insanity has its price -- Please have exact change.

limerickman

I read both of his books.
The only insight I got from his books was a man attempting to justify himself
and his results.

I take exception to your remarks about me personally.
You do not know me - you have never met.You do not know with whom
I have worked - you have no knowledge of my cycling career either.
So to make a ludicrous remarks like you have, just shows you for what you are.

What i have provided you with here is documented articles by a number of people : if Dr Testa, Graham Fife, David Walsh, Miguel Indurain, eddy Merckx have lied in various publications : you or your hero are free to take it up with them.
The documents are out there for you and the public to read (that's if your
really interested in learning - rather than regurgitating the jaundiced view
of your hero).

"He is admired and respected by virtually everyone who knows him, including virtually every other pro cyclist, trainer, race organizer, and certainly the past greats"
If he's so admired why did Merckx, Indurain say what they said.
Why is Laurent Jalabert having a go at LA as recently as yesterday ?

limerickman

this deja vu - I'm a Spurs supporter !
Do you want to start arguing about soccer ?
Surely not !
I have to say Arsenal are a great team though.
U see - there I can offer an opinion that is unbiased !

Brunswick_kate

Spurs supporter? Sweet jebus but you know this goes a whole long way to explain at lot...in my completely unbiased opinon...

__________________
Insanity has its price -- Please have exact change.

Ted B

<yawn>

I am witness to your hard-headed vitriolic opinions, now here are mine:

It is my opinion that you have not read his books.

What you do or what you did, real or imaginary, in this life or a past one is irrelevant.

I see nothing but heavily biased conspiracy theories coming from a loudmouth without a shred of proof. I do however find your opinions amusing.




From MSNBC News...

At the start of the Tour’s first stage in Liege on Sunday, the Texan, oddly sporting the points classification leader’s green jersey which goes to the second place finisher in the prologue, received a friendly visit from Miguel Indurain.

Indurain:
“I came to say hello and encourage him. I wish him good luck,” said the Spaniard, winner of five Tours between 1991 and 1995.

Merckx:
“I hope he will make it because he’s my friend,” Merckx said.
“You can only admire his dedication, his courage, his character and his talent but it also makes some people jealous,” he said.


And on that note, Merckx's observation certainly explains the nature of these hotheaded, repeated rants.

babylou

Picky, picky. Sheesh. Change my statement to :"There is evidence just no irrefutable proof"

Now grab your glasses and look real hard into your monitor. Can you see the crack of my....

Miguel_garcia83

tottenham is good!!
robbie keane!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i prefer celtic and of course... racing santander!!!!!!