House said:Five days of bliss, I knew it couldn't last much longer.
Actually I was hoping that when I did it would be more like five years!MJtje said:Ooh boy.......you were waiting to make this comment
So you´re saying that Armstrongs training and weight/power ratio play an important part in the transformation?Flyer said:
No, it does not mean that. There are many other factors (doping & training and weight/power) which cloud the miracle of transformation from 'one-day rider' to a time-trialing grand tour athlete.
What % do you think doping played in Armstrongs transformation?House said:Actually I was hoping that when I did it would be more like five years!
I will assume that you quoted the wrong person.Tejano said:What % do you think doping played in Armstrongs transformation?
You must be an idiot if you don´t think Armstrong is blessed with freaky genetics, busts his ass training, has a great team to support him, technological advantages because of the money LA Inc puts into winning the TDF, an approach and preparation which has transformed the TDF in a way which no other rider has before him!
15%
10%
What do you think?
Tejano said:So you´re saying that Armstrongs training and weight/power ratio play an important part in the transformation?
What % does doping play in the change?
Did I confuse you with the Haters? What´s your take? Has anyone been able to demonstrate that Armstrong didn´t make a huge transformation but progressed progressivley? If it could be demonstrated there was no transformation but only realization how would that affect the "Urban Myth" stance?House said:I will assume that you quoted the wrong person.
Tejano said:Did I confuse you with the Haters? What´s your take? Has anyone been able to demonstrate that Armstrong didn´t make a huge transformation but progressed progressivley? If it could be demonstrated there was no transformation but only realization how would that affect the "Urban Myth" stance?
So you won´t lay down a %! I find that interesting! You don´t really know how much doping improved his performance!Flyer said:Great question.
This frames the "Lance Armstrong" debate nicely, but does not address the greater problem with widespread doping of all the other athletes.
Nevertheless, the Armstrong story is truly a miracle of modern medicine and deserves heavy scrutiny so that both the sporting public and the Cancer community can gain from it.
The Armstrong story begin with his teammates in 1990 & 1991. Two of his mates are still sick.
Lance recovered and won a TDF---so he is a commercial success and icon. Greg & Erich are just sick losers still battling for cash settlements.
Lance commenced work with Michele Ferrari after watching his riders smoke everyone. Finally in October 1995 they began their work together. By August 1996 Lance had Testicular Cancer.
Radiation, Chemo and massive loss of muscle mass followed as well as fatigue and immune system trauma changed Lance.
Post chemo---Lance immediately met back up with Michele Ferrari, and the blood doper specialist began his anabolic and anti-anemia work with a 'clean canvass' so to speak.
The rest is history. More sustainable power output (better for TTing and climbing) Less upper body weight (better for climbing, not for sprinting), and a net gain in sustainable power/weight.
The final result was a stage racer in the tradition of Ferrari's other clients(Tony Rominger & Evgini Berzin)
But the questions remain; What drugs did Armstrong & Ferrari use? In what doses? What frequecies?
Were any drugs pure research and unavailable to other racers? Did they super dose for the Tour only?
Since no disclosure on these critical matters, other than blanket denials, are ever published, we can only guess.
I do consider this lack of disclosure cheating.
Obviously! Who ever said this debate is important! It´s called male bonding!MJtje said:Pff my take, couldn't care less. Doping is in all sports, also in cycling. Most people in Europe are not that delussional about doping.......I do acknowledge that it is a problem, and if you tested positive youre positive period (sorry ty-fans). However, talking about doping doesn't change much in the world....there are waaaaaaay important things in life.
If I watch a bike race I never think of dopers attacking dopers. ''And doper 1 attacked doper 2.......yes doper 1 has won''. I just watch lance, basso, jan riding their asses of.....I mean put things in perspective it's not that big deal......
Watching tsunami's, people starfing in Africa and on and on........that IS important (that was my rant for today)
MJtje for pope
Tejano said:So you won´t lay down a %! I find that interesting! You don´t really know how much doping improved his performance!
You must be an idiot if you don´t think Armstrong is blessed with freaky genetics, busts his ass training, has a great team to support him, technological advantages because of the money LA Inc puts into winning the TDF, an approach and preparation which has transformed the TDF in a way which no other rider (let me repeat this NO OTHER RIDER) has before him!
15%
10%
5%
2%
What do you think? I´ve looked at the "Urban Myth" and it has much more weight, both anecdotical and statistical than what I will name your "Mother of all Myths".
Your Yarn uses much more speculation, conjecture, and
hearsay!
I don´t claim that LA isn´t "looking out for himself", I question the claim he is doping!Flyer said:Idiot? Or maybe just in the know vrs confused by false themes?
Tejano said:I don´t claim that LA isn´t "looking out for himself", I question the claim he is doping!
I don´t think your an idiot but rather that you´ve bought into the propoganda that cycling is rotten all the way through!
Wasn´t it Leimrickman who posted that he´s got connections in the pro peloton and that not all riders are doped? I think that even included some top players if I remember correctly?
Your claims don´t hold weight! I agree with Ferrari when he says this stuff doesn´t fundamentally change a cyclists performance!
Virenque seemed to consitently do well in the tour after Festina and he claimed to be clean.
David Millar´s results in the World ITT´s didn´t fundamentally change from when he used and when he didn´t.
And the "Mule to Horse" **** is just that! My question is if Fillipo Simeoni was a Mule while he was using EPO, what was he before??????????????
Flyer said:I don't have your gift for being able to ascertain when an 'endorsed athlete' is lying to you about their personal doping. It could be a special gift, otherwise you're being duped by endorsed druggies.
I assume they are all lying when they deny drug use.
This way I was not disappointed when David Miller, after 90 days of angry denials and name calling rants, dropped his pretence and he admitted using Eprix. Although---you still seem to believe he did it as he admitted--just a few times and not when he won the 2003 TT World Title.
I think he is a liar---and I believe he doped routinely.
I was not surprised that Tyler Hamilton was busted---especially not after being teammates with Alex Zulle---another former mate of Richard Virenque. Zulle admitted doping in 2000---after he finished with Armstrong on the podium in 1999.
I was not surprised when 6 of the top ten in last year Tour of Guademala were EPO positive.
Stage races are very demanding and if winning is important--doping is essential.
I believe Richard Virenque is drug addict and pathalogical liar. Do you know many addicts who are frank and honest about subjects that will terminate their employment?
I was not surprised to read that the 1991 PDM mystery was NOT food poisoning, but EPO overdoses. This came out in 1997 after 6 years of denials.
And do not use limerickman to defend your 'theory' that today's TDF peloton is 'clean'. He never wrote that.
But you go on believing that certain riders are morally pure---and/or are so arrogant that they will forfeit huge synthetic advantages---in order to set records and collect more pay. (seems counter to human nature---but it's your belief, not mine)
You might wonder why Michele Ferrari thinks EPO use is no more dangerous than drinking orange juice? I mean, why endorse EPO use, if it does NOT help?
You read his 'commercial theme' and not his code of conduct. btw: He is gulity of malpractice---and it was not for avoiding illegal doping advice.
11-1-5 4:38 AM in this thread! Check it out!Flyer said:And do not use limerickman to defend your 'theory' that today's TDF peloton is 'clean'. He never wrote that.
MJtje said:This discussion will probably never end.......but just a question for you Flyer. You said you raced at high level....how high? You've won numerous races, all clean? Did friends of you dope or became professional riders...or were you?
Just trying to find an explanation what goes inside that head of yours, because posting that much about doping is somewhat odd/weird and maybe you can give an explanation for that
Tejano said:11-1-5 4:38 AM in this thread! Check it out!
-Leimericman
"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."
David Millar admited using EPO in his ITT win in the 2003 Worlds and his title was taken away! I think! If I remember correctly.Flyer said:This way I was not disappointed when David Miller, after 90 days of angry denials and name calling rants, dropped his pretence and he admitted using Eprix. Although---you still seem to believe he did it as he admitted--just a few times and not when he won the 2003 TT World Title.
I think he is a liar---and I believe he doped routinely.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.