Armstrong Lies

[Anonymous]

So?...many of you were DPF'rs too but it just didn't quite bring out the inner ... trolls in you.

Who is this Simeoni person you have so much empathy for? Had you even heard of the guy before the hate community had a feeding frenzy of the incident?

Is there something about chasing down cyclists bad?

Yes, because unlike you, I am and have been a fan of the sport of cycling, not just a single nutted narcissist with and Oedipus complex.

 

[Anonymous]

I am totally with you on the anti-doping thing.
As a former racing cyclist/I wasn't that good, and I have been putting miles in in the last 3 years I can speak with some knowledge on the sport.
LeMond was racing in senior 1 as junior in the same races I was racing in.
I don't know how to stop doping in cycling. I said a few things in this forum and I was shouted down and insulted. I am 6 years older than LeMond.
My freinds also cyclists trained/mentored LeMond. We never used substances to go fast.

What I do know is that cycling has always had this problem and by my understanding at 18 here in the US I knew that as a European Pro cyclist in the year 1974 one had to dope to ride grand tours and classics.
I had a pretty good idea that the European doctors found amphetemines or flipped molecules in drugging agents which could not be found in controls.
You can insult me but Lance is not the problem.
If doping bothers you find a way to clean it up or find another sport to watch.

You are right, he is not THE problem. He is however a clear example of someone who fights cleaning up the sport with all of his resources. He is also a narcissistic *** who expresses his assholiness as often as he can; so he brings much of the ire upon himself.

 

[BikeCentric]

Since when has anyone improved their performance by 20% in a time trial? I've never seen it.

That's because you don't race, nor do you know anything about it. Your comments make this abundantly clear.

 

[BikeCentric]

That's because you don't race, nor do you know anything about it. Your comments make this abundantly clear.

Oops, I responded to the troll. I will put his new incarnation on "ignore." It gets difficult to keep track when he signs up every week with a new username.

 

[Anonymous]

That's because you don't race, nor do you know anything about it. Your comments make this abundantly clear.

That's quite an assertion.

I'm just saying I've never seen a 20% increase in a rider in a pro race or amateur race. Cancellara wins the 50k odd World TT by 2 minutes and that's a landslide. In the real world 20% increases in power just don't happen.

 

[Anonymous]

Oops, I responded to the troll. I will put his new incarnation on "ignore." It gets difficult to keep track when he signs up every week with a new username.

Thanks!.................

 

[Anonymous]

I was more relating information than debating with you. The study which gave you that 20% figure is the upper end improvement in a small controlled study, where about one guy of the eight people showed this level of improvement after being doped up to the eye balls over four weeks by experts. It's not an average. You guys follow the sport so you'll know that nobody ever increases their TT ability by 20% - certainly not pros. Name me one rider who came back from the off season one year and suddenly started averaging 20% better in their TT performances? Just never seen it.

If you want to claim that is trolling then you'll easily be able to knock it down. Go nuts...

 

[Race Radio]

I was more relating information than debating with you. The study which gave you that 20% figure is the upper end improvement in a small controlled study, where about one guy of the eight people showed this level of improvement after being doped up to the eye balls over four weeks by experts. It's not an average. You guys follow the sport so you'll know that nobody ever increases their TT ability by 20% - certainly not pros. Name me one rider who came back from the off season one year and suddenly started averaging 20% better in their TT performances? Just never seen it.

If you want to claim that is trolling then you'll easily be able to knock it down. Go nuts...

Do you have a link to support this assertion?

 

[BikeCentric]

Oh geeze I just can't resist this one. There once was a rider who was good at Classics but really sucked at Time Trialing and Long Climbs. Then he started working with a Dr. named Ferrari. He improved both his climbing and TT'ing by at around 20% and won 7 Tours de France in a row.

Okay I promise I'm done playing with trolls now.

 

[BYOP88]

Oh geeze I just can't resist this one. There once was a rider who was good at Classics but really sucked at Time Trialing and Long Climbs. Then he started working with a Dr. named Ferrari. He improved both his climbing and TT'ing by at around 20% and won 7 Tours de France in a row.

Okay I promise I'm done playing with trolls now.

Didn't this guy, get a lesson from a true champion(one who never said a bad word about any other cyclist in the press etc) in a ITT once, still awesome to watch to this day. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmR9k8UAohs

 

[Race Radio]

Didn't this guy, get a lesson from a true champion(one who never said a bad word about any other cyclist in the press etc) in a ITT once, still awesome to watch to this day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmR9k8UAohs

Indurain put 6 minutes on Armstrong.

Of course he made a massive improvement once he lost 1/2 a kilo and discovered high cadence.

 

[Race Radio]

Oops, I responded to the troll. I will put his new incarnation on "ignore." It gets difficult to keep track when he signs up every week with a new username.

better get some penicillin

 

[Anonymous]

Oh geeze I just can't resist this one. There once was a rider who was good at Classics but really sucked at Time Trialing and Long Climbs. Then he started working with a Dr. named Ferrari. He improved both his climbing and TT'ing by at around 20% and won 7 Tours de France in a row.

Okay I promise I'm done playing with trolls now.

Yes but he didn't improve by 20% in the time trials. I think his overall improvement from early 1990s to winning the Tour in 1999 was about 6% in power.

This backs up my point.

 

[Race Radio]

Yes but he didn't improve by 20% in the time trials. I think his overall improvement from early 1990s to winning the Tour in 1999 was about 6% in power.

This backs up my point.

what "backs up your point"? Do you have a link to support this or did the 6% figure come to you while you were dreaming about Armstrong while off your meds?

 

[Anonymous]

what "backs up your point"? Do you have a link to support this or did the 6% figure come to you while you were dreaming about Armstrong while off your meds?

I shouldn't really respond to the trolls. (I'm pleased fewer and fewer people are responding to TFF).

I believe the efficiency comes from Prof Coyle. Now, before you all wet your pants about Prof Coyle, this is not actually the disputed part of his work. The disputed part is how Armstrong was able to make such an improvement. That's what people like Michael Ashton object to. Ashton doesn't object to the 6% part - he too can do the calculations.

If all it takes is a 6% improvement to win a tour, then you can see this 20% thing is not real world stuff.

So, turns out I was right then. No need to go into this dismissive "what's he talking about?" pretense thing.

 

[Race Radio]

I shouldn't really respond to the trolls. (I'm pleased fewer and fewer people are responding to TFF).

I believe the efficiency comes from Prof Coyle. Now, before you all wet your pants about Prof Coyle, this is not actually the disputed part of his work. The disputed part is how Armstrong was able to make such an improvement. That's what people like Michael Ashton object to. Ashton doesn't object to the 6% part - he too can do the calculations.

If all it takes is a 6% improvement to win a tour, then you can see this 20% thing is not real world stuff.

So, turns out I was right then. No need to go into this dismissive "what's he talking about?" pretense thing.

I understand that part of your trolling is to post *** stuff just to get people to respond to you but you might as well try to get your bait correct.

Beside's Coyle's "Work" being widely discredited http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/09/coyle-and-armstrong-research-errors.html it occurring in the off season he also said that Armstrong's improvement was 8%, not 6%. Using Armstrong's own numbers Pre EPO he was not able to hold 410 watts, afterward he considered himself Tour ready at 495. You do the math.

Given you have been banned here many times for trolling I expect you to respond with more stuff that comes to you from the voices in your head and is not based on fact. When I do not respond it is because your latest incarnation is now on my ignore list not because there is any validity in what you write.

 

[Anonymous]

I understand that part of your trolling is to post *** stuff just to get people to respond to you but you might as well try to get your bait correct.

Beside's Coyle's "Work" being widely discredited http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/09/coyle-and-armstrong-research-errors.html it occurring in the off season he also said that Armstrong's improvement was 8%, not 6%. Using Armstrong's own numbers Pre EPO he was not able to hold 410 watts, afterward he considered himself Tour ready at 495. You do the math.

Given you have been banned here many times for trolling I expect you to respond with more stuff that comes to you from the voices in your head and is not based on fact. When I do not respond it is because your latest incarnation is now on my ignore list not because there is any validity in what you write.

So my trolling was that it was 8% and not 6%? Yet the claim I was responding to claimed it was 20%. I think that makes me more right than wrong. If I'm a troll then it makes BikeCentric a super troll.

Nice try, RaceRadio.

 

[Anonymous]

Actually a perfect example of how RaceRadio trolls. He knew that I was right when I said you just don't seen 20% increases in power in TTing, yet he joined in with the other trolls by pretending I was nuts. He only later reveals that he knew all along that even Armstrong's big improvement, from his low point in the early 1990s to winning the Tour, was 8%, yet he played dumb. Then tries to accuse me of trolling by getting it slightly wrong!

That's a troll, guys.

 

[Race Radio]

Sorry for responding to the Herpes of the message board. Back on topic, Armstrong's lies.

Armstrong loves to pretend he is a good dad by twitting to his groupies whenever he does whatever normal dads do, like dropping his kids off at school.

JV calls him out today on Twitter

I have nothing witty to say today.I could tell everyone I dropped my son off at school and packed his lunch.But that seems self promotional.

http://twitter.com/Vaughters/statuses/6669948309

 

[red_flanders]

Yes but he didn't improve by 20% in the time trials. I think his overall improvement from early 1990s to winning the Tour in 1999 was about 6% in power.

This backs up my point.

So the thrust here is that Armstrong's gains in the TT were not helped by doping, yes? Have a look at this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmR9k8UAohs

I don't know what the percentage is but I've rarely seen pack fodder abused so recklessly. The idea that this rider beat Indurain's times over the same courses in TT's later in his career, unaided by doping is...

...absurd.

A six percent increase in performance at the top level is astronomical. I'd guess we're looking at close to 10% in this video.

 

[Anonymous]

So the thrust here is that Armstrong's gains in the TT were not helped by doping, yes? Have a look at this video.

Actually no. It was the last post on the clinic and I checked it out. BikeCentric was doing that thing of asserting as fact that all blood doping and EPO increases power by 20%. I pointed out the fact this is not the case. I later pointed out, in my defense, that I remembered Armstrong's increase over ten years was "about 6%". Turns out it was 8%. Again, proving my point.

But if you want to talk about that video, so what that Indurain wipes the floor with Armstrong in one time trial in 1994? Do we have video of LeMond getting whooped from the same time period? The GC guys always put a lot more effort into it anyway.

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry for responding to the Herpes of the message board. Back on topic, Armstrong's lies.

Armstrong loves to pretend he is a good dad by twitting to his groupies whenever he does whatever normal dads do, like dropping his kids off at school.

JV calls him out today on Twitter

I have nothing witty to say today.I could tell everyone I dropped my son off at school and packed his lunch.But that seems self promotional.

http://twitter.com/Vaughters/statuses/6669948309

Well a lot of people seem to think Armstrong doesn't have anything to do with his kids and is just some playboy, so I can see why he would slip in those comments to set the record straight.

 

[red_flanders]

Actually no. It was the last post on the clinic and I checked it out. BikeCentric was doing that thing of asserting as fact that all blood doping and EPO increases power by 20%. I pointed out the fact this is not the case. I later pointed out, in my defense, that I remembered Armstrong's increase over ten years was "about 6%". Turns out it was 8%. Again, proving my point.

But if you want to talk about that video, so what that Indurain wipes the floor with Armstrong in one time trial in 1994? Do we have video of LeMond getting whooped from the same time period? The GC guys always put a lot more effort into it anyway.

Armstrong was quoted after that stage as saying he was going all out and was stunned by Indurain passing him like that. Something to the effect of "..I ..I...was doing like 53 kph on the flat and he passed me doing 57! I couldn't believe it..."

I don't have anything to say about the 20% other than I doubt it's accurate. I don't know where you get 6% or 8% but 8% seems believable as to the difference in power for Armstrong pre and post Ferrari.

At the top level of the sport, to increase your power by 8% is ridiculous.

An 8% difference in this year's Annecy time trial gets you to somewhere about 83rd place, about 4:20 back--a time clocked by the legendary TT'ist Anthony Geslin.

 

[poupou]

The Cycling news Christmas party, eh?

20% is the upper end maximum of lab tests studies of a small amount of people who have dosed up to the max on a four week program. I very much doubt any pro cyclist avoiding drug tests would get a benefit like that or anywhere near it. Since when has anyone improved their performance by 20% in a time trial? I've never seen it.

Do you not see the 20% improvement on performance between 93 and 96?

Frankie Andreu spoke of a 20% advantage with EPO.

About TT, because power is the square of speed, a 20% advantage is translated to a 9% gain on time.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

........

You got your facts wrong - it was not 6%, it was an 8% increase - but dont feel so bad - so did Dr. Coyle, as explained here.

I can save you the trouble of reading it - Dr. Coyle did not weigh LA nor use the same ergometer.