Which do you think gives Lance that extra edge when he beats his rivals by mear seconds, his doping or his training?
Lance doping?
- Thread starter frenchcycling
- Start date
I think that his dealings with cancer gave him his edge. After his bout with cancer, he started to look critically at all aspects of his cycling career. He was now looking at the food he ate, his components on the bike, and his training. Maybe if some of those french guys who haven't won a tour since 1985 would grow a brain, they would fair better in the tour. Not to mention the French can't even win their own war and if you can't win your own war you can't win a tour, thats my saying. Hell, they will wan't us to go to war when the German army is sitting in Paris sipping coffee. If you look at Jan Ullrich, hes fully capable of winning the tour like he did in 1997. For the most part, he comes to races undertrained, overweight and with no tactics. If he had greater dedication to cycling, I wouldn't see him with a huge gut at the start of the cycling season.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Hey frenchcycling ... he's not doping so the answer has to be training.Eric22 said:
Pete
http://www.viovio.com/anthropete
How bout his enlarged heart? How about is ability to rid himself of lactic acid faster? How about how his femur is longer than the average mans'? The list goes on and on. Add on cancer survivor and amazing technology etc etc, and you're going to be successful.frenchcycling said:
He's not doping. Get over it.
frenchcycling said:
How about the fact that he spends most of his day on his bike, instead of anonymously and pathetically trolling internet forums.
here we go with the old doping issue. I was just waiting for it to start.
With as much as he has been tested if there was doping going on they would have found it by now
hmm and with a name like french cycling??? think there might be some envy there?
With as much as he has been tested if there was doping going on they would have found it by now
hmm and with a name like french cycling??? think there might be some envy there?
americans backing armstrong ,what a surprise haha
the guy is clearly on dope
why do people say his personal physical attributes explain his performances?
his vo2 is 85 whereas brad mcgees is 89 yet we dont see brad climbing mountains like they are not there
back in 98 most if not all of the peleton was on drugs yet the average speed is higher today,please explain?
why did lance sue his indemnity company for witholding bonuses when all they asked for was his full medical history? what has he got to hide?
the guy is clearly on dope
why do people say his personal physical attributes explain his performances?
his vo2 is 85 whereas brad mcgees is 89 yet we dont see brad climbing mountains like they are not there
back in 98 most if not all of the peleton was on drugs yet the average speed is higher today,please explain?
why did lance sue his indemnity company for witholding bonuses when all they asked for was his full medical history? what has he got to hide?
can you quote what exactly is the length of the average mans femurs?TrekDedicated said:
cancer survivor? why dont all cancer survivors make great athletes?
His ability to get rid of lactic quicker?where is the proof that he can get rid of it faster than any other cyclist?
amazing technology? i dont see much difference between technology nowadays and back in the mid 90s (tiny differences)
his enlarged heart? most cyclists at that level have this
TROLLING?wineandkeyz said:
this is what lance called david walsh
why are you copying lance?
are you that much of a loser?
do you dress up as lance and pretend to be him?
PATHETIC
hahahahahaha
Patrick1983 said:
First of all, you are a fool. You must not read books or watch tv shows about LA.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5289509/
"Lance’s femur bone is a rarity in that it is considerably longer than the average man’s, and that gives him the ability to apply more torque to the pedals"
"Armstrong produces less lactic acid, which builds up in muscles when they start to work beyond their aerobic capacity, and metabolizes it better. This uncanny ability allows Armstrong to ride strong and long, while other cyclists taper off. "
"Armstrong’s heart is nearly one-third larger than that of the average man. Resting, it beats an average of 32 times per minute. During peak performance, it will top out at more than 200. "
Etc etc, do your research and you'll learn.
Now, for the technology aspect, you really are blind. Just looking at the difference in bike technology from the 90s time is tremendous.
FInally, since I feel you are a waste of time, I'm not going to bother any more. The fact that you think technology hasn't greatly improved and haven't read/watch things about LA, proves to me that you aren't 'with it'.
Didn't I hand you your ass on this topic in another thread???? Oh, that's right you ran away from that one. Do some research and you'll find that the term "troll" was around long before Lance was winning Tours. That's where he got it from. In the dictionary under troll there is a picture of you!Patrick1983 said:TROLLING?
this is what lance called david walsh
why are you copying lance?
are you that much of a loser?
do you dress up as lance and pretend to be him?
PATHETIC
hahahahahaha
TrekDedicated said:
i see you have been watching the discovery channel specials. the fact of the matter is that all cyclists have those abilities, they just don't have tv shows on it.
Further, imagine how much cycling would have to lose if one of the top starts over much of the past decades tested postitive. We remember the effect that the whole festina incident had? they had many famous riders. and cycling as a whole suffered financially. The UCI would not want to go thru something like that again. for them who cares if the top rider does. no one would want to see lance test positive.
the uci would suffer if they themselves found their great champion and posterboy "lance"to be doping. finding him guilty would simply hurt cycling. the UCI would be shooting themselves in the foot.
Hmmmmmmm, I learned this way before Discovery was in the picture...
Guess that kind of proves you wrong.. Bummer
As for your other 'theory', take off your tin foil hat.
Guess that kind of proves you wrong.. Bummer
As for your other 'theory', take off your tin foil hat.
i've been waiting awhile to make this comment.frenchcycling said:
How about instead of spending copious amounts of hours researchings lance armstrongs doping habits, and posting your b.s. thoughts on the internet about how your the greatest cyclist you actually get off of your ass and go out and ride your bike. Then you might actually be able to go out and compete at the same level he is riding.
I will tell you exactly what armstrong is on. His bike for 8 - 10 hours a day.
<------ notice my post count is low. Might be due to the fact I ride my back pretty much every free moment I have.
frenchcycling said:
So, conspiracy theory, eh? That's a good one. Obviously you are a crack. Ok, folks, the show is over.. this guy is a hoot.
Patrick1983 said:TROLLING?
this is what lance called david walsh
why are you copying lance?
are you that much of a loser?
do you dress up as lance and pretend to be him?
PATHETIC
hahahahahaha
Speaking of trolls...
Gee, is that the best you've got?
um yea, some of us have actual jobs. i work 9-6:30 weekdays and still manage to get in 3 hours everyday. (ever do half a ride outside the other half on a trainer?) i do. don;t flatter yourself mr. dedicated.dgz69er said:
