Today's Forum Topics
Set as homepage
|
View
New Forum Topics Today's Forum Topics Set as homepage |
 |
|
|||||||
Welcome to CyclingForums.com You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread. By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds. |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
11-01.-2005, 10:30 AM
|
#1 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Recovery is the Golden Fleece and almost nobody gets it right
Posts: 484
|
Armstrong has been tinkered with!!
Here is a quote from good bro "limerickman". Gets you thinking!
Could it be that Armstrongs drop in weight from a tour weight of about 170 to 158, along with "smarter training", could make such a HUGE difference in his performance in the tour? NOT! Here's the good quote. "Putting it very coarsely - the guy was a donkey, he's now a thoroughbred. Donkey's don't become thoroughbreds. The tapes prove it - 1995 TDF where did he finish ? 1 hour 30 mins behind Indurain. Says it all really - and that was his third TDF. Look at the other greats - Ullrich, Merckx, Hinault : they had won their first TDF in the first, second, attempts respectively. Yet Armstrong in his third TDF is still 1 hour 30 mins behind the eventual winner." |
|
|
|
11-01.-2005, 10:55 AM
|
#2 | |
|
Community Team
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: at the bar
Posts: 12,386
|
Re: Armstrong has been tinkered with!!
Quote:
I find LA's explanations for his improvement to be unbelievable - quite simply. The statistics are there for everyone to access. I have watched cycling for more years than I care to remember and the explanations given by LA to explain his success as a stage race rider since 1999, and after having suffered cancer, do not ring true to me. I watched LA closely between 1992-1996 and he was, in relative terms, at best, a good one day rider. Even on this basis though, he wasn't the best one dayer in 1992-1996. Tafi, Museeuw, Zulle, Jalabert were all superior to him. As a stage race rider, he was an also ran. He never managed to win a major stage race like Paris-Nice, Dauphine or Midi Libre. (he did win the Tour du Pont). In the major tours, he was never a contender on GC. Nor was he a contender in any of the classements within the Grand Tours. Recall his comment when Big Mig caught him for six minutes during the 1995 TDF at stage 19 Lac De Vassiere ITT : "I simply couldn't believe that Indurain caught me for six minutes - I'll have to go away and work on my ITT riding". It's up to everyone to decide their view, of course. Statistically, LA is not the rider he was between 1992-1996. And his explantion for his improvement does ring true. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-01.-2005, 11:17 AM
|
#3 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 583
|
Re: Armstrong has been tinkered with!!
Pre cancer 2 semi-Classics and a Worlds (when no one was racing because of the cold and wet) - post cancer 6 straight TdFs. I hear a lot about his amazing VO2, this that and the other - he had all those physical advantages pre cancer presumably? I don't believe a word of it.
|
|
|
|
|
11-01.-2005, 11:20 AM
|
#4 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Mt. Diablo, California
Posts: 2,249
|
Re: Armstrong has been tinkered with!!
Quote:
Reiterating Lim's last line: And his explantion for his improvement does ring true. I knew you'd come around buddy. I think what you're really upset about is that your theory about super champions having a pedigree is flawed. One thing's for sure - whatever Lance's results might be in the Spring Classics (are we still allowed to call them that?) there's going to be a lot more speculation and you'll either have more ammunition or more grief. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-01.-2005, 11:25 AM
|
#5 | |
|
Community Team
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: at the bar
Posts: 12,386
|
Re: Armstrong has been tinkered with!!
Quote:
should read "doesn't ring true". We have been over this ground before, my friend - I think that my pedigree theory holds more now than it did when we discussed this issue last year ! I look forward to LA's taking part in the spring classics - although I would wager that we will see him at this years TDF as well and he'll be out to win it. (Discovery would want to see a return on their investment). |
|
|
|
|
|
11-01.-2005, 11:35 AM
|
#6 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 348
|
Re: Armstrong has been tinkered with!!
Hi! I've been following the discussion for quite some time kai and I do find it very very interesting. What you say limerickman seems logical and it may very well be true. Yet in other topics you seem to accept Flyer's point of view that LA was a doper pro-cancer. Assuming that this is also true I find it hard to put his success post-cancer down simply to drugs. There is no drug that can produce such a difference by itself.
|
|
|
|
|
11-01.-2005, 11:42 AM
|
#7 | |
|
Community Team
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: at the bar
Posts: 12,386
|
Re: Armstrong has been tinkered with!!
Quote:
I don't understand the question. My premise is that LA was, at best a one day rider, pre cancer. Then he was diagnosed with cancer and is out of the peloton for two years. He comes back in the Vuelta in 1998 and he starts this winning streak. He outclimbs the greatest climbers, he outsprints people, he out rolls everyone. This is the same man who could only finish one TDF between 1992-1996. To me the explanation for his improvement from pre-cancer to post cancer doesn't ring true (he tells us it's hard work, weight loss, more focus). Everything I have read about LA pre cancer showed me a cyclist who trained bloody hard (see David Walsh's interview in the 1993 book "Inside the TDF", with LA) and who was totally focussed. The only other mitigating factor is weightloss and LA wants us to accept this as his premise for his improvement. That's my issue - LA's explanation for his improvement. I don't believe that he is telling us the truth. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-01.-2005, 11:58 AM
|
#8 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 348
|
Re: Armstrong has been tinkered with!!
Then I probably misunderstood you. I think that what he is telling is part of the truth but not all of it
|
|
|
|
|
11-01.-2005, 12:22 PM
|
#10 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 348
|
Re: Armstrong has been tinkered with!!
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-01.-2005, 12:38 PM
|
#11 | |
|
Community Team
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: at the bar
Posts: 12,386
|
Re: Armstrong has been tinkered with!!
Quote:
Now we're moving on to dangerous territory. The presumption is that LA simply caught up with an already doped peloton. This is dangerous ground. I have two contacts in the current peloton and I can tell you that not all pros are dopeurs. These sources are impeccable people and I have no reason to distrust their words. It also depends how one defines doping. What Flyer alleges is not just doping, it is Dr Frankenstein stuff. It's taking the basic human raw material and fundamentally changing it in to someone who performs way beyond their capability. If you're taking stuff in order to simply finish a course, tour, season - you are merely taking stuff to look after yourself. Is this doping ? Others take stuff and their performances dramtically improve - and to me they are the dopeurs. I have no doubt some people will say that I have contradicted myself. I oppose all artificial help - but I can do so in the knowledge that I could never be a contender. But I do have sympathy for those who take stuff merely to ensure that they get a contract. It's those who dope at the top of the sport who not only cheat their fellow competitors but they also put pressure on those further down the peloton to perform in order to earn a crust. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-01.-2005, 01:08 PM
|
#12 | |||
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 348
|
Re: Armstrong has been tinkered with!!
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
|
|
|
12-01.-2005, 12:04 AM
|
#15 |
|
Community Team
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: at the bar
Posts: 12,386
|
Re: Armstrong has been tinkered with!!
I have it on good authority that several of the current top men in cycling do not dope.
What do I mean by do not dope ? I mean that they do not go near EPO or HGH. I can name them and if you look at their cycling palmares you will see cyclists who have been consistent performers throughout. Does this mean that they take nothing artificial though ? I cannot say - I would presume that they could well drink 10 cups of coffee after a training run. Is 10 cups of coffee equivalent to taking EPO/HGH ? In my book - it isn't. if a cyclist takes 10 cups of coffee, he's looking after himself in my book. Legally he is cheating - but in my rationale he's looking after himself. If a cyclist is using EPO/HGH, he's cheating. He's is using a substance to improve his performance. I believe that in 1996 when LA was dying that he took the decision that if he recovered, he would be prepared to take whatever substances he needed to in order to win. That's my reading. When you face death - and come back, the limits don't exist anymore. You make the most of everything, presumably. This is my difficulty with LA - he attempts (since 1999) to create the perception that his success is down to his working harder than the rest of the peloton. This is self aggrandisment and denial - and it derogatory of his fellow pros. All pros work hard - certainly as hard as LA. They certainly work as hard as he did when he told David Walsh in 1993 that "I thought the Triathlon was tough but pro cycling is at another level. The suffering, the sacrifice is what I enjoy. But it's a hard life, far harder than anything you'll ever experience in sport and, perhaps, life. I train all day and I make the sacrifices - because I am prepared to do so". |
|
|
|
Linear Mode
