UCI grant Saiz ProTour licence....



wolfix said:
There is an excellent chance that LA still would have won the TDF if the TDF was 100% clean. There is nothing to suggest otherwise.
Yeah, sure. Armstrong could not climb with the mid level European pros. He could not time trial. There was nothing whatsoever to suggest he was capable of breaking the top twenty in the TdF. Nothing. We now know that Armstrong's excuses for his massive improvement, such as weight loss, were a lie. From his retrotested urine, we also know he was using enough EPO in 1999 to supply entire Gewiss team. To suggest his TdF wins, which just happened to coincide with his EPO use, would have taken place without drugs is ludicrous.

Once again the resort of doping apologists rears its head: Even if he did use drugs it was a level playing field and he would have won anyway. And I suppose Riis would have won the Tour without drugs, and Chiappucci would have podiumed without them, and Rumsas would have too, etc. What is so hard about admitting that drugs have completely ****ed up the results of the last decade and a half? That is why people take dope in the first place: To change the results.
 
Bro Deal said:
Yeah, sure. Armstrong could not climb with the mid level European pros. He could not time trial. There was nothing whatsoever to suggest he was capable of breaking the top twenty in the TdF. Nothing. We now know that Armstrong's excuses for his massive improvement, such as weight loss, were a lie. From his retrotested urine, we also know he was using enough EPO in 1999 to supply entire Gewiss team. To suggest his TdF wins, which just happened to coincide with his EPO use, would have taken place without drugs is ludicrous.
Problem I have with this, perhaps is why would he have not been taking EPO when he won say, the world championships? It was around, it was available. Or perhaps it just shows the difference between a fairly random doping program, take what you can when you get it, and a science based highly planned doping program.
 
poulidor said:
An exemple, Jalabert was not a real climber but with EPO he became a challenger for the winning of TDF.
Not just that. But all you have to do is read first hand tales by pros about their experience with those using EPO. They are filled with stories of astonshment when sprinters and notoriously bad climbers motored by them on climbs once they started on the juice. Those that deny the junk made a difference are delusional. To attempt to equate the effects with amphetamines and steroids is a joke.
 
Blood doping started in the seventies...





poulidor said:
There is a big difference between 80's drugs and EPO.
With 80's drugs it was impossible to have big improvements as we have seen with a combination of EPO and others drugs.
Without EPO Riis would have never won TDF, Chiappucci, Jalabert would have never been great climbers, ... and Lance ...

In Brazil, I saw a marathon runner who cutted the line in first, and did a "wheel" after the race, his time was under 2H10 if my memory is good. This world-unknown man has disappeared, maybe some people said him he has
roue-anim.gif
too overdone...
I don't know if we can find a video of this race on the web, but it's a good exemple of what you can do with EPO ( amarathon and a wheel).
 
Originally Posted by Bro Deal We now know that Armstrong's excuses for his massive improvement, such as weight loss, were a lie. From his retrotested urine, we also know he was using enough EPO in 1999 to supply entire Gewiss team.
Please give me the proof I anxiously await this info.
 
cyclingheroes said:
Blood doping started in the seventies...
yes, an exemple with Lasse Viren (5000 and 10000m) at Olympics games, 2 double (5000 and 10000m)!
Later Los Angeles with American riders.
And ?
 
Absolutely ridiculous he got a license....

The cycling world, it seems, is shooting off every one of it's toes and is about to shoot itself in the whole foot. Whereas everyone else thinks they are pointing the gun at their head.

What is this madness...
 
Bro Deal said:
Once again the resort of doping apologists rears its head: Even if he did use drugs it was a level playing field and he would have won anyway. And I suppose Riis would have won the Tour without drugs, and Chiappucci would have podiumed without them, and Rumsas would have too, etc. What is so hard about admitting that drugs have completely ****ed up the results of the last decade and a half? That is why people take dope in the first place: To change the results.

Right on, great post. There is no question that a coordinated doping program can turn average athletes into spectacular athletes. Riis, Rumsas, and Chiappucci are excellant examples. And for this year, José Gutierrez.

The level playing field argument is nothing but an excuse for cheating.
 
wolfix said:
The doping today is more powerful....But if everyone is doing it, it levels the field. And it seems at the top level , everyone is doing it. And like the old doping practices, you still have to be a fantastic athlete to win even with dope.

No, No, No.

That is where you're wrong, Wolf.
Everyone isn't "doing it" as you put it.
Nor did everyone do it back in the 1980's, 1970's etc.

I am sick to the teeth of people putting out suggestions that every rider (athlete) is doing it to try to justify their own particular heroes when they've been shown to have doped ie. "it's a level playing field - they all dope".

Take athletics : Paula Radcliffe doesn't dope.
Steve Ovett and Seb Coe in the 1980's didn't dope.
They were champions - they've won titles.
Ian Thorpe (Aussie swimmer) doesn't dope.
Roger Federer (tennis player) doesn't dope.

Cycling is the same : riders can win without doping.
I would suggest that it is probably harder to win in cycling, given cycling's propensity to allow "champions" to dope in recent times (mid-1990's onwards).

You should read Mark Scanlon's interview in last weeks Sunday Times.
 
Tim Lamkin said:
Please give me the proof I anxiously await this info.
I already posted it before in this forum. Read the previous weeks threads. Walsh and co. showed that Armstrong's weight in the early part of his career was the same as his Tour weight. No fifteen to twenty pound weight loss. It was a complete lie. The bogus claims of increased efficiency due to higher cadence have been extensively covered in this forum.
 
Bro Deal said:
I already posted it before in this forum. Read the previous weeks threads. Walsh and co. showed that Armstrong's weight in the early part of his career was the same as his Tour weight. No fifteen to twenty pound weight loss. It was a complete lie. The bogus claims of increased efficiency due to higher cadence have been extensively covered in this forum.
I don't really want to wade into this, as I don't really care, and I'm not arguing one way or the other, but he sure looked skinner to me. Thoughts?
 
Bro Deal said:
I already posted it before in this forum. Read the previous weeks threads. Walsh and co. showed that Armstrong's weight in the early part of his career was the same as his Tour weight. No fifteen to twenty pound weight loss. It was a complete lie. The bogus claims of increased efficiency due to higher cadence have been extensively covered in this forum.
I will say that Walsh is a liar then..I met La for the first time several days after his Worlds win..... I have seen him at rides during his TDF days , and I got the oppurtunity to ride several miles with him this past July. From the World's to the TDF days he lost tremendous upper body size. If his weight is the same, the body structure is not.
Not a TT'er? He came in second in 1996 in the GP Eddy Merckx , losing just barely to Chris Boardman. That is a showcase for TT'ers. And didn't he also place in the top 5 o or 6 in the Olympic TT?

Not a climber......??? I know he lost at least 15 ibs {as far as Walsh goes, it is documented and admitted to by Walsh that he is a confirmed liar when it comes to journalism. He admitted that himself. } But it seems that LA left Migual in the dust in Norway on a very hilly course in 1992 as a 21 year old. { in Miguals prime..... ]

And he also won the [size=-1]San Sebastian Classic, not exactly a climbing race in the Alps, but a climbing race anyway. No where on the list of winners of the [/size][size=-1]San Sebastian Classic is a rider not capable of being called a climber. Oh yeah , he did this in 1995.[/size]
I think he has shown some climbing ability. And TTing strenght before his cancer.

It has not been effectivly covered......the cadence part. I know for a fact that increasing cadence is going to allow better climbing and better TTing. It is my personal experiece on the track that this is true. I have rode with a world class climber named Andy H.... One of the individuals who coached him at a young age about cadence back in the day is the same guy who I rode for. My riding skills improved tremendously after increasing my cadence just 10rpm's. And Andy is known here in the states for his cadence and climbing skills. So yes, cadence increese is a very effective way to get faster.
One of the first things Greg Lemond was told when he reached Europe was to improve his cadence.

The LA haters want to believe so bad that the only reason LA won was because he doped and no one else did. History is going to show LA as 7 time TDF winner and never convicted of a doping offense. LA will be remembered long after no one knows who Walsh is, or cares.
But this has already been covered in this forum many times.
 
limerickman said:
No, No, No.

That is where you're wrong, Wolf.
Everyone isn't "doing it" as you put it.
Nor did everyone do it back in the 1980's, 1970's etc.

I am sick to the teeth of people putting out suggestions that every rider (athlete) is doing it to try to justify their own particular heroes when they've been shown to have doped ie. "it's a level playing field - they all dope".

Take athletics : Paula Radcliffe doesn't dope.
Steve Ovett and Seb Coe in the 1980's didn't dope.
They were champions - they've won titles.
Ian Thorpe (Aussie swimmer) doesn't dope.
Roger Federer (tennis player) doesn't dope.

Cycling is the same : riders can win without doping.
I would suggest that it is probably harder to win in cycling, given cycling's propensity to allow "champions" to dope in recent times (mid-1990's onwards).

You should read Mark Scanlon's interview in last weeks Sunday Times.
I am concerned only with cycling .....And I am convinced every TDF winner was doped since 1970...... I doubt if many of the lesser riders doped, scared of the controls. But we know now that the powers in cycling must have looked the other way for years concerning the TDF.
Look at the list of riders who have won the TDf since 1970... Very few riders on that list have not been associated with doping...... Most of them have been convicted. Indurains name stands out as someone who has not been associated with it. However, we know now how the Spanish have overlooked many things. And the question arises, how was he so strong when during his first 7 years he was basically just a average rider. Then EPO was introduced. He became unbeatable. ..... Lemond said there was 2 speeds...... And Indurain was one of them he was referring to......

So no ....... many of the riders who were not doping are out there. They are just at the back of the pack. But I am willing to bet that in the GT's the contenders were at it...... for a long time. But we loved the sport anyway.

Matter of fact , look at the top 3 riders in every TDF since 1970 and you have a hard time finding someone who hasn't tested positive at one time or another in their career.
 
Bro Deal said:
I already posted it before in this forum. Read the previous weeks threads. Walsh and co. showed that Armstrong's weight in the early part of his career was the same as his Tour weight. No fifteen to twenty pound weight loss. It was a complete lie. The bogus claims of increased efficiency due to higher cadence have been extensively covered in this forum.
...yea...Okay....sure if you say so..

And as we know if it is covered here, in this forum, then it is absolutely correct without reproach and no question to authenticity or accuracy …cool I got it. :D
 
wolfix said:
I will say that Walsh is a liar then..
It is not Walsh claiming no weight loss; it is Amstrong's own words from the SCA case. I suppose Armstrong was lying...

wolfix said:
Not a TT'er? He came in second in 1996 in the GP Eddy Merckx
Yeah, 1996. After he had spent more than a year working with Dr. Ferrari and more than a year after urging other Motorola teammates to use EPO. I am sure he was clean. In the words of Stephen Swart, "He was flying."

wolfix said:
{as far as Walsh goes, it is documented and admitted to by Walsh that he is a confirmed liar when it comes to journalism.
Citation, please.

wolfix said:
One of the first things Greg Lemond was told when he reached Europe was to improve his cadence.
You mean the same Greg Lemond who confronted Dr. Coyle about how increasing cadence when you are at your limits will put you into oxygen debt and cause you to reduce power in order to prevent that? That Greg Lemond? Or do you mean the Greg Lemond who raced against older U.S. riders while being forced to use junior gearing? Or do you mean the Greg Lemond who has disputed Armstrong's claims of power increases due to cadence increases?

wolfix said:
The LA haters want to believe so bad that the only reason LA won was because he doped and no one else did.
And the LA homers just cannot get over their manlove and admit he was a doper despite testing positive six times for EPO, urging his teammates to dope, making unprecedented power increases, punishing riders who spoke out about doping, etc.

In the strange world of Wolfix everyone doped except Armstrong, and pointing out Mickey Mouse amphetamine infractions during the 70s somehow excuses the remote possibility, probably never happened, I dont believe it, he would never do it chance that Armstrong doped.
 
There are still too many cycling fans (who should know better) who bury their heads in the sand and pretend that everything's going to be okay. Really people; our sport is a laughing stock. I watch Tours as if watching movies - I suspend my disbelief and go with the lie, the special effects the PEDs paint upon the screen. My cycling hero for many years was Pantani but I know that he used EPO. I also know his main competitors used EPO but it doesn't make it right. The problem is that the connection between myself as a cyclist and the pro racers has gone. We are not in the same game. There are no injections, no transfusions, no pills in my cycling world. I complain about the wind and the cold and the rain (I live in Scotland!) but I do not complain about the ethics code, DNA tests and the 'unfairness' of being a junkie who gets caught in the trap. Stop cheering the cheats or - as Zabel recently warned - our sport will not survive.
 

Similar threads