Armstrong produced 30 more watts in 2005 than 1999

limerickman

Learn your history indeed.

If you were aware, all one hour records from 1972 onwards were scrapped by the UCI.
They're gone, debunked, finito, binned.
The UCI scrapped them because the speeds were regarded as not being credible.

I know information takes time to reach Indiana - but now that you're formally in the loop, let's not have to read anymore of your twaddle.

House

1972 onwards would include Merckx record, so I guess that doesn't count either. I notice how you conveniently ignore the fact about Boardman vs. Mercks and the time of their career they were in when they set the record and the part about aerodynamic bikes, but you fall right in with the "I am right even if I have to leave out pertinent facts to make my case" crowd. No idea what you are talking when you mention Indiana....I don't live there, just add that to the list of crap you spew.

Patrick1983

sorry house but you were the one who brought up sports nutrition as an excuse for the improvments in performances

i find it hilarious that you can put forward a "candy bar" which essentially what the likes of powerbar are as a reason for the increase in speeds

tomorrow i shall eat a powerbar and my speed should increase?

kennf

Not really an accurate statement Flyer, and you know it. Mark Gorski admitted to possion of Actovegin and insuling, but denied any of the riders used them. Gorski's statement (in part):

"Prior to the start of the 2000 Tour, Actovegin was brought into France by our team physician with the full authorization of the Agence Française de Securité Sanitaire des Produits de Santé, the French medical control agency. Actovegin was available to be used to treat severe skin abrasions due to crashes and to aid one of our staff members who has diabetes."

The French investigation into this was eventually closed. I'm not trying to say that LA never doped, I'm just saying that your statement quoted above is inaccurate and misleading.

VeloFlash

Actovegin came to the notice of officials when it was on the pharmaceuticals and vitamins declaration list of many teams at the 2000 Sydney Olympics. I attach a posting from another forum.

I would question how Actovegin would assist healing of mystery abrasions on swimmers and cross country skiers, 2 endurance related sports.

The Actovegin was not on the banned list at the time, because it wasn't approved for use in humans,and the UCI didn't know about it. It was added immediatley after. As was language outlawing any type of blood manipulation or increasing the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood etc...Postals cover story was pure BS, Cross Country Skiers and Olympic Swimmers were caught with it too, and they don't have to worry about road rash etc.. Basically they were running in the gray area, and got lucky.

When he tested positive for corticosteroids, he later showed the UCI a perscription for a topical ointment. This should have been in his medical book before the test. Several team members have since said that the TUE was in fact backdated, but that the UCI didnt really care, as long as they had one to save face. Having a perscription for one type of product that shows up in the test similairly or the same as a banned one is very common. Over 50% of the peleton are "diagnosed" asthmatics in order to have there albuterol, bhroncial dialators, and beta blockers etc..

There are several corticosteroids that are undectable still, and Human growth Hormone is still undectable,and there is now EPO that is made from Human Cells, Instead of Chinese Hamster Ovary cells (no lie, that what is used) the Human derived EPO is indistinquishable from your own within hours now, so the dopers are always a step ahead. Before that the top guys (mostly Ferraris patients) were instructed to take micro doses of EPO, not the typical 2000 or 4000 IU bi weekly etc, but daily smaller doese, and they don't show up on the thest.

there are literally dozens of steroids that have been slightly tweaked or engineerd to be invisible to the tests.

There is still the old standby trick of banking your own blood, for packing it back in, Like the cycling team did in the 1984 Olympics, and what I think Phonak was doing, albiet Erroneously. Does anyone know if both Tyler and Santi Perez had the same blood type?

Chris Charmichael was sued for allegedly injecting Juniors in Europe, Armstong was on that team. Carhmichael settled out of court, which makes me think he's not innocent.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001...ain284958.shtml

No surprise since Carmichael was on the 1984 Olympic team that openly blood boosted and took 9 medals. Eddy Borysewicz was there too, as coach, and he was instrumental in the Forming of Motorola and US Postal. Mark Gorski was on the Olympic Team, Gorski was the Team Manager for USPS in 2000 when they got caught with the Actovegin.

Postals team doctor over the last few years was a Spanish doctor who was working for Once during the late 90's drug heydays, and Throw in Lance's choice of performance doctor in Michele Ferrari and the rabbit hole is very deep indeed.

Regardless, Lance is a phenomenal athlete, and a great TdF Champion.
to paraphrase Willy Voet, ex-festina soungier, When all the combatants have the same weapons, the strongest men still win.

The post is erroneous on the backdated TUE on the corticosteriod. It is common ground from all parties (O'Reilly, USPS, UCI) that it was a prescription.

I would also wonder why USPS would be responsible for provision of drugs for a support team member's diabetic condition. This is a private issue.

__________________
VF

"Remember, even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat"

kennf

I agree, the diabetes story was strange. But not nearly as strange as the reference to Chinese hamster ovary cells (yikes!).

But Flyer's post implied that Armstrong admitted to using Actovegin and insulin, so I'm just trying to keep it real.

VeloFlash

This is an extract from the Actovegin website:

The active components in Actovegin® promote glucose uptake by cerebral and skeletal muscle and other cells and stimulate intrinsic glucose transport by regulating glucose carrier GluT1; Actovegin® activates piruvate-dehydrogenase (PDH) and thereby leads to increased utilization of glucose by cells and formation of energy-rich substances ("insulin-like·effect). (Oberermaier-Kusser et al. 1989) Actovegin® also increases uptake and utilization of oxygen by hypoxic tissues and cells (which can be proven by Warburg's test) via promoting mitochondrial respiratory function and decreases formation of lactate, as a result, it protects hypoxic tissue. (Machicao, 1993; Kununaka et al. 1991)

Uptake of glucose is a benefit for diabetics one would think. The other benefits are clearly endurance athletic. No benefits for healing of abrasions.

You are correct that there was no admission to use of Actovegin by the riders other than it must have been used, judging by the empty disposed cartons, for questionable abrasion repair. Any USPS riders come down in the 2000 TdF?

The anti doping rules are clear. You can only be sanctioned for violating an anti doping rule. Empty cartons in a dumpster traceable to and admitted ownership by USPS are not evidence for rule violation. However, it it highly suspect that USPS were ahead of the anti doping game in using Actovegin for purposes other than "abrasion repair" and tending to the medical welfare of a team support staff.

__________________
VF

"Remember, even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat"

wicklow200

As usual this is an interesting discussion, but the way you guys react to each other is pretty ugly.

I know more people on this forum would spend more reading these doping threads if it weren't for the level of abuse you aim at each other . I mean it is House's right to disagree, and not believe everything you guys say. And after all I think his core point is that yes, there is a lot of doping in cycling, but perhaps just not at the 100% level that is alleged by Flyer.

Couldn't someone draw up some ground rules here - Community team members for example?

jimmer23

This thread, as well as the others of the same kind, I find to be hysterical. I have one question to ask: WHO CARES? These are athletes we're talking about here people! They're NOT role models. They're not heroes. They're not brain surgeons. They're not politicians working on nuclear test-ban treaties. They ride bikes fast for a living - from point A to point B. They hit baseballs and throw touchdowns. Who cares what they use to get there? Flyer, you loser, why all the hatred and animosity? From the tone and style of your posts, I'm surprised if you even own a bike, let alone how to work one to make it go forward.

Why care? I'm not a doper. I never would consider it. Nor am I an advocate. But these are professional athletes. They do many many things that "normal" people wouldn't do. Do you want to ride a bike every day for hundreds of k at a time and maintain an unbelievably strict diet and have no other life than on the bike? Not me, sorry. Much like those of us who work 90 hours a week - many people just wouldn't do it, but you do to get ahead in certain professions. Is the stress of certain professions a health risk? Sure it is. Do firefighters and policemen and soldiers put their health at risk to do a job? Sure they do. There are tradeoffs to everything worthwhile in life. If the pros want to use drugs and advanced nutrition and insane training to get to the top of their chosen profession, and they've figured out a way to get by the tests (which they surely have), then why not? Do you think you would like to live life on their diets and training and 3% bodyfat and surely constant crashes and advance onset arthritis? Not me, I'd rather expend my energy towards other things. It's a choice and a tradeoff - I will never win the TDF. Oh well. It's a choice everyone must make, and if the playing field is indeed as level in cycling as it would seem to be, then what exactly is the problem?

Is it "cheating" that has you all riled up Flyer? What exactly is cheating but a set of rules made up by others who think they know how to promote the idea of "fair" play? Do you advocate rules in war? I shoot first then you and so on and so forth? How about in business? Employees are only allowed to work so many hours. Or how about in science? You're only allowed to use so much of your intelligence and not allowed to study to enhance your knowledge.
There are of course exceptions to all of the above (Geneva Convention, workplace safety compliance, etc.), as there are in cycling. For instance you're not allowed to get into a car and drive past all the other riders to gain time. These exceptions are made to keep the activity within the bounds of war, business, science, sport (you can't use a bazooka to launch home runs in baseball). But no drugs for athletes looking to squeeze every last bit of performance from their bodies? Come on. You'd have athletes all with 20% body fat on 30lb steel bikes with early 20th century hardware before you know it. What's next, limits on training? Only allowed to ride a certain distance per week? It's like the conversation on the UCI minimum weight rule. It's all completely ridiculous. Ride what you ride, do what you do - who cares? You want to be a pro cyclist? Well then, you're signing up to the risks inherent in the sport. And if you want to be the best and you're not incredibly gifted, or lucky, or both, then you know what you have to do. Life's a bitch - deal with it or go work in McDonalds.

This discussion is retarded. Let the athletes do what they do best - entertain - and not care how they get there. I don't. LA is an incredible specimen of fitness, intensity, and endurance. Do I care how he did it? No. Am I sure there are other cyclists using more advanced methods of doping and drugging and finding the loopholes? Sure there are. He just happened to have a good base and a good combination of whatever, to rise to the top of his sport. Science, training, technology - all is and should be fair play. Afterall, if I'm not mistaken the goal is still to win isn't it?