Did Armstrong create "Puke Cycling"? - CyclingNews Forum

Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Road > The Clinic

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-20-12, 13:22
Basecase Basecase is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 231
Default Did Armstrong create "Puke Cycling"?

There is a term in Ireland: "puke football".

https://www.google.ie/search?q=puke+...&client=safari

I ask my learned fellow clinicians did LA create similar in cycling?

Was his high cadence only possible with PEDs?

Did he and Carmichael mis-sell an illusion to young and new comer cyclists?

Would such persons have any retort to the illusion??
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-20-12, 14:56
martinvickers martinvickers is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Ireland
Posts: 2,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Basecase View Post
There is a term in Ireland: "puke football".

https://www.google.ie/search?q=puke+...&client=safari

I ask my learned fellow clinicians did LA create similar in cycling?

Was his high cadence only possible with PEDs?

Did he and Carmichael mis-sell an illusion to young and new comer cyclists?

Would such persons have any retort to the illusion??
Interesting Analogy. Ah, Puke football, Ulster championship memories there, boys. Maybe we should replace Liggitt with Spillane?

In terms of your point, there have always been 'big engine' riders, who lack the fast twitch to do the explosive mountain bursts.

That said, the last 100 yrs of cycling have been so dope-ridden it's hard to know if ANY of the 'types' of cyclist are real.

We do know that Arsmtrong turned himself into a big deisel (TT)WITH explosive capacity(Chasin Pantani), when prior to his cancer, he was really neither.

I don't think LA was a 'new' thing just the same old, but taken as far as a ruthlessly sociopathic personality and new wonder drugs and techniques could take it. something like an armstrong was inevitable as s0on as the importance of blood was properly discovered and analysed.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-20-12, 16:17
Basecase Basecase is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 231
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by martinvickers View Post
Interesting Analogy. Ah, Puke football, Ulster championship memories there, boys. Maybe we should replace Liggitt with Spillane?

In terms of your point, there have always been 'big engine' riders, who lack the fast twitch to do the explosive mountain bursts.

That said, the last 100 yrs of cycling have been so dope-ridden it's hard to know if ANY of the 'types' of cyclist are real.

We do know that Arsmtrong turned himself into a big deisel (TT)WITH explosive capacity(Chasin Pantani), when prior to his cancer, he was really neither.

I don't think LA was a 'new' thing just the same old, but taken as far as a ruthlessly sociopathic personality and new wonder drugs and techniques could take it. something like an armstrong was inevitable as s0on as the importance of blood was properly discovered and analysed.
But those who were clean know themselves, you can't discredit all athletes in the sport.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-20-12, 17:22
DirtyWorks's Avatar
DirtyWorks DirtyWorks is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 6,409
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by martinvickers View Post
That said, the last 100 yrs of cycling have been so dope-ridden it's hard to know if ANY of the 'types' of cyclist are real.
This isn't really true. Lemond's era is probably the last where the results reflect their real, relatively human performances. When EPO reaches the elite peloton and if you are a responder, then suddenly you are Grand Tour champion material, crushing the clean, gifted athlete.

Lemond's racing results are the perfect example. When EPO is widespread, an athlete that raced on the sharp end of practically every event is suffering mid-pack. Conversely, if Wonderboy was actually a gifted cyclist among other pre-EPO cyclists, then he would have podiumed practically everything he entered.

There is such a thing as athletes who do not respond to oxygen vector doping, so it's efficacy is not universal.

EPO and related oxygen vector doping changed the fundmental premise of cycling as an athletic endeavour. Wonderboy changed everything. Pat and Hein definitely helped him out. So, again, it's not just about the athletes. The federation was and probably still do pick winners thanks to oxygen vector doping.
__________________
Wefunk Radio: funkify your life!
http://www.wefunkradio.com/radio/

Last edited by DirtyWorks; 11-20-12 at 17:25.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-20-12, 18:13
martinvickers martinvickers is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Ireland
Posts: 2,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyWorks View Post
This isn't really true. Lemond's era is probably the last where the results reflect their real, relatively human performances. When EPO reaches the elite peloton and if you are a responder, then suddenly you are Grand Tour champion material, crushing the clean, gifted athlete.

Lemond's racing results are the perfect example. When EPO is widespread, an athlete that raced on the sharp end of practically every event is suffering mid-pack. Conversely, if Wonderboy was actually a gifted cyclist among other pre-EPO cyclists, then he would have podiumed practically everything he entered.

There is such a thing as athletes who do not respond to oxygen vector doping, so it's efficacy is not universal.

EPO and related oxygen vector doping changed the fundmental premise of cycling as an athletic endeavour. Wonderboy changed everything. Pat and Hein definitely helped him out. So, again, it's not just about the athletes. The federation was and probably still do pick winners thanks to oxygen vector doping.
I don't think I disagree with you that fundamentally, DW.

Prior to EPO, doping was widespread, but small fry. It's very hard to find truly 'clean' cyclists, and many doped not for results primarily, but just to survive (this siwhere race organisers must share some blame, creating 'inhuman' races to sell papers, rather than truly test athletes)

But Anquetil doped, Coppi doped, Mercx doped, Kelly doped, fignon doped - but i'm pretty confident, at the same time, that these guys were still the best talents of their generation. It's no excuse, but i think it's true all the same.

Lemond was a freak of nature - sport throws them up from time to time. He may have done a few PEDs (i don't think he did, but I'm recognising the possiblity), but his VO2 max was simply exception, no 2 ways about it. Same as Bolt is just abnormally tall for a sprinter, or Pinsent in rowing had ridiculous lung capacity.

The first truly heartbreaking sign of trouble was Indurain - because he had near the natural talent of a LeMond - but i severely doubt he was content with that. His five in a row set the precendent for what happened, because in a sense it made the wonderboy fairytale easier to explain.

But when EPo appeared, it didn't give riders a tiny edge - it gave (some of them) a freaking BMW. At that point, the sport stopped being a race of humans, some of whom cheated, to a race of pharmacists with labrats. The first is still sport, even if it's dirty - it the latter, it's not really sport, no more than WWE - especaiily is, like WWE, the UCI were 'picking' the winners.

Now millions of people love WWE. But it doesn't make it sport.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 22:01.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.