Armstrong Lies

Page 15 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mar 6, 2009
4,602
504
17,080
pmcg76 said:
I am currently trying to stay out of all the Lance threads but the BS I have read on the previous pages in regards to the Simeoni affair is unblievable. I cannot let this one pass.

It is very obvious that those criticising Simeoni know nothing about the guy or what is considered acceptable behvaiour in pro cycling.
A full recap then.

1. Simeoni along with guys liked Chiappucci & Bortolami were involved in the trial aginst Ferrari because their names were found in his files. This case started in 1999 before Lance had won a single Tour so had nothing to do with Lance. There was no conflict.

2. The athletes involved were asked what a red asterik in their training diary referred to. Simeoni admitted that Ferrari had advised him on what drugs to take when there was a red asterik and where to get them. Chiappucci who was retired by then admitted the same in his initial testimony but then changed his story saying it was amino acids or he couldnt remember. Bortolami gave the same testimony, the same Bortolami who was later busted when EPO was found in his refrigerator. Does anyone think Chiappucci wasnt on EPO in the 90s. Simeoni was the only one to tell the truth if thats what you believe.

3. For being honest and admitting to taking drugs, Simeoni was banned for a period but came back to win a stage at the Vuelta 01, famously walking over the line with his bike held in the air as a symbolic gesture for those who lost their lives in the 9/11 tragedy. His photo appeared in newspapers all over the world but he was fined by stupid race organisers for his actions.

4. Armstrong only came into the picture when his relationship with Ferrari was outed by David Walsh. It was a secret before that, the Ferrari trial was ongoing for 2-3 years at this stage and Simeoni was the only athlete who had a consisent story i.e. Ferrari advised him to take EPO.

5. When Lance was asked about the ongoing trial against Ferrari in 04, he called Simeoni a liar in a newspaper. Why? If his relationship with Ferrari had never been outed, he would have never have said a word against Simeoni. He had never criticised Simeoni in the time before the link with Ferrari was common knowledge, that was a 2-3 year period.

6. Simeoni was shocked to hear the biggest star in cycling calling him a liar in a major newspaper as the trial had nothing to do with Lance and he was just telling the truth in the court of law. He felt that Lances accusations could destroy his career and as the accusations of being a liar were unfounded, he threatened to sue Armstrong and if he won, give the money to charity.

7. In the 20 years of following pro-cycling and the Tour, the last few flat stages post mountains are considered carte blanche for the lower ranked riders on GC to have a shot at a stage wins. Very often we see stage winning margins of 10/20mins, only the sprinters teams make any effort to chase breakaways if they dont have a rider in the break or there is a tight battle for the Mailllot Vert. It has always been that way and is considered part of cycling etiquette for this to happen.

8. In 2004, Simeoni was one of the lower ranked GC riders who got away on such a stage. Lance ordered USPS to chase, there was absolutely no reason for them to chase, the GC was sown up already. They were not able to bridge so Lance took it upon himself to bridge the gap. He had no intention of winning the stage, his only aim was to prevent one rider having a shot of winning and to humiliate him. That day he broke the rules of cycling etiquette because of a vendetta against a single rider who had dared to speak the truth about Ferrari.

8. It was Armstrong who made it about himself, not the other way round as Simeoni was never ever testifying against Lance or even questioning him, it only became relevant to Lance when his relationship with Ferrari was outed and that was not Simoenis problem. Lance then called an athlete he barely knew a liar in a major European newspapaer turning it into a conflict. Nobody does conflict like Lance as proven again by the whole Contador sage this year except Contador is a big rider unlike little guy Simeoni.

If people cannot follow this case and not see that Lance behaved like a complete ****, then too bad for you. I would still have been a Lance supporter when this incident occured in 2004 and it turned me completely against him as I had never seen anything like it in my time following cycling. I had known about many disagreemts/arguments in the peloton but this was so vindictive and unseemly.

For the biggest name ever in pro-cycling to behave in such a way does not constitute sporting behaviour in my book and the primary reason I dont like Lance. When you are growing up playing sport, cheating is considered wrong as is being disrespectful to your team-mates, opponents etc, yet Lance seems to hold these values in contempt.

The first time I posted this in this thread, it was completely ignored by the everyone who is backing Lance which says it all really. Personally I think it shoud be kept as a reference for all those who dont know about Simeoni.

I am not skewing facts or timelines on this, I give my personal opinion at the end. People can make their own mind up on this subject and correct me on anything that is inaccurate.

Thanks to whoever uploaded the photo of Simeoni, I wonder what fabulous excuses (if any) we will hear now. Watch this space. Great White, Hombre, Guilder, Polish, Bueller anyone???
 
Sep 14, 2009
6,300
3,561
23,180
Dec 14, 2009
50
0
0
He is the MAN OF STEEL...au natural...pure as the driven snow...everything he does is selfless and for the growth of the sport...and for cancer survivors of course. You know if you say you are gonna be "transparent" then be transparent...answer peoples questions, don't get ****ed when they show up to drug test you, stop getting all hemmoroidal when people are skeptical - I remember watching him at a conferance with Paul Kimmage (think what you want to of him, good or bad) and he just won't comment on anything to do with drugs. He's pompous and I'm sorry that we are all not big fans of his marketing campaigns.
Your wanting a hero to worship and emulate is clouding your vision...wake up and smell the cat food* (TMBG)

Dude, I saw Dr. Ferrari this morning...he's gonna fit a V12 inside my chest.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
poupou said:
Do you not see the 20% improvement on performance between 93 and 96?

But then it goes down even further for two years and is the same when he won his last tour. Seems like a lot of mumbojumbo.

Early tours are particularly hard for riders. They maybe domestiqing and told to only target certain stages. The length of the race is a completely new mental challenge. You can't really compare like with like.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Dr. Maserati said:
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.

But if you read the thread, the 8% thing isn't a disputed part of Coyle's work.
 
Sep 14, 2009
6,300
3,561
23,180
Great White said:
But then it goes down even further for two years and is the same when he won his last tour. Seems like a lot of mumbojumbo.

Early tours are particularly hard for riders. They maybe domestiqing and told to only target certain stages. The length of the race is a completely new mental challenge. You can't really compare like with like.

:confused:
WTH are you talking about? Natural stage racers are natural from the get go. And Armstrong was no natural.
 
Apr 3, 2009
12,595
8,457
28,180
Great White said:
But then it goes down even further for two years and is the same when he won his last tour. Seems like a lot of mumbojumbo.

Early tours are particularly hard for riders. They maybe domestiqing and told to only target certain stages. The length of the race is a completely new mental challenge. You can't really compare like with like.

Yet Armstrong's palmares in early Tours stands in shocking contrast to every other champion of the last 50 years. No results whatsoever. Almost unprecedented.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Some facts:

anquetil
1st @ age 23
abandoned @ age 24
3rd @ age 25

gimondi
1st @ age 22
7th @ age 24
4th @ age 25

aimar
abandon @ age 24
1st @ age 25
6th @ age26

pingeon
12th @ age24
8th @ age 25
1st @ age 26

janssen
abandon @ age 23 (won mountain stage)
24th @ age 24 (won two stages and the green jersey)
9th @ age 25 (won mountain stage and green jersey)
2nd @ age 26

merckx
1st @ age 24
1st @ age 25
1st @ age 26

ocana
abandoned @ age 23
31st @ age 24 (won mountain stage)/won the vuelta
abandoned while wearing the yellow jersey and holding 8 mins on merckx (won 2 mountain stages) @ age 25

thevenet
35th @ age 22 (won mountain stage)
4th @ age 23
9th @ age 24
2nd @ age 25

van impe
12th @ age 22
6th @ age 23
3rd @ age 24 (best climber)
4th @ age 25 (best climber)

hinault
1st @ age 23
1st @ age 24
abandoned @ age 25 (while wearing the yellow jersey)

zoetemelk
2nd @ age 23
2nd @ age 24
5th @ age 25

fignon
1st @ age 22
1st @ age 23
7th @ age 26

lemond
3rd @ age 23
2nd @ age 24 (won ITT)
1st @ age 25 (won mountain stage)

roche
13th @ age 23
25th @ age 24
3rd @ age 25 (won mountain stage)

delgado
15th @ age 23
abandoned @ age 24 (after winning mountain stage)
6th @ age 25 (won mountain stage)

Now begins the EPO era. Look at the dramatic differences:
------------------------------------------------------------------

indurain
abandoned @ age 22
abandoned @ age 23
97th @ age 24
47th @ age 25

riis
95th @ age 25
abandoned @ age 26
107th @ age 27

armstrong
abandoned @ age 21
abandoned @ age 22
36th @ age 23
abandoned @ age 24
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Great White said:
............

Yes - I read the thread - the 8% "thing" was to do with his performance which was calculated using his weight, which was guessed!

It wasn't disputed - it was ridiculed.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Dr. Maserati said:
Yes - I read the thread - the 8% "thing" was to do with his performance which was calculated using his weight, which was guessed!

It wasn't disputed - it was ridiculed.

No, the way Armstrong made the improvement is a point of debate. The improvement itself is not a matter of debate as far as I know.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
red_flanders said:
Yet Armstrong's palmares in early Tours stands in shocking contrast to every other champion of the last 50 years. No results whatsoever. Almost unprecedented.

But Armstrong became a pro just as the EPO era took off, so naturally this would have held him back quite a lot. LeMond was struggling at the same period - if he started his career at the same point as Armstrong you'd doubtless be saying Lemond wasn't cut out for tour riding.

Armstrong was also quite an immature and unfocused young rider, and not the most natural of bike riders in my opinion - a great athlete, but not necessarily the most naturally suited to cycling - so I think he will have peaked a little later anyway.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,854
2
0
Ripper said:
Wow, crazy story!

On another note - are your serious that the pic is who you say, or joking?

I think we can all agree that that story must be about Arbiter/BPC etc. It describes him perfectly.
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,865
1,275
20,680
poupou said:
Do you not see the 20% improvement on performance between 93 and 96?
9v9ycw.jpg


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.

One thing that jumps out at me is the group wide power drop after Festina and through Lances first 4 wins. We know he was on EPO in '99, but it looks like most others were scared off for a while.
The drop from '95 through 2002 was huge in the peloton has a whole and yet Armstrong's own power went up markedly. How could he have done that without doping, and why was he, unlike many others it seems unafraid of detection?
 
Apr 9, 2009
1,916
0
10,480
Race Radio said:
I think we can all agree that that story must be about Arbiter/BPC etc. It describes him perfectly.

I agree as well. I've been "taking good care" of his ex-fiance from the article and she tells me during pillow talk that discussion boards are now his only outlet for talking about his homoerotic Lance obsession because everyone in his life has shut him out.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hugh Januss said:
One thing that jumps out at me is the group wide power drop after Festina and through Lances first 4 wins. We know he was on EPO in '99, but it looks like most others were scared off for a while.
The drop from '95 through 2002 was huge in the peloton has a whole and yet Armstrong's own power went up markedly. How could he have done that without doping, and why was he, unlike many others it seems unafraid of detection?

Did they all handover their power tap information? Or was it worked out using the same method that says Contador produced more power known to man on the Verbier?

I don't know whether its true about Contador, but that demonstrates how unreliable this process is without hard info. Take all power estimates with a pinch of salt.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
One thing that jumps out at me is the group wide power drop after Festina and through Lances first 4 wins. We know he was on EPO in '99, but it looks like most others were scared off for a while.
The drop from '95 through 2002 was huge in the peloton has a whole and yet Armstrong's own power went up markedly. How could he have done that without doping, and why was he, unlike many others it seems unafraid of detection?
____Hugh Januss
With a name like yours and being a Lance tirebiter I would have presumed you would have known.____The answer of course is area 51__________
 
Apr 3, 2009
12,595
8,457
28,180
Great White said:
But Armstrong became a pro just as the EPO era took off, so naturally this would have held him back quite a lot. LeMond was struggling at the same period - if he started his career at the same point as Armstrong you'd doubtless be saying Lemond wasn't cut out for tour riding.

Armstrong was also quite an immature and unfocused young rider, and not the most natural of bike riders in my opinion - a great athlete, but not necessarily the most naturally suited to cycling - so I think he will have peaked a little later anyway.

There's no question he was a great one-day rider who lost a significant palmares due to the doping of others early on. Once on the program, he got dramatically better, and became first a truly competitive one-day rider able to challenge the best, then moved into becoming a GT rider as the true benefit (for him) of the blood-boosting programs became evident--to others, not him.

But the other Armstrong apologists will argue that he was always bound for GT greatness, and the WC and one classic win are indicative of this. ********.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
4
0
Great White said:
Did they all handover their power tap information? Or was it worked out using the same method that says Contador produced more power known to man on the Verbier?

I don't know whether its true about Contador, but that demonstrates how unreliable this process is without hard info. Take all power estimates with a pinch of salt.

Well, that's the great thing about physics. Because of gravity, the lower limit on power is mgh/t where m is the mass of the rider, g is the acceleration due to gravity, h is the total elevation gain, and t is time. Since the gravity field is constant and static, there's no complex path integrals involved.

In other words, to climb a hill you must expend this much power at a minimum.

And it's easy to improve that calculation by making conservative estimates of other losses such as aerodynamic drag.

No voodoo or withcraft, just elementary science. The biggest unknown always seems to be total weight (riders don't like to publish number because it will let you calculate power output) and can add some uncertainty.

Also the numbers are pretty clear that within margins of error, Contador put out some unreal amounts of power on Verbier.

John Swanson
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,854
2
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Yes - I read the thread - the 8% "thing" was to do with his performance which was calculated using his weight, which was guessed!

It wasn't disputed - it was ridiculed.

It is only another attempt to derail a thread by the resident troll. In his crazy world the more inaccurate info he posts the more people pay attention to him.

While some here like to propagate unsupported theories that professional athletes do not benefit as much from EPO as the average person there is nothing that would indicate that this is the case. In fact many think just the opposite is true.

David Millar's position on the subject.

You wouldn't notice it unless you were a high level athlete, an elite athlete. And if you're an elite athlete, it makes a big difference.
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,865
1,275
20,680
ScienceIsCool said:
Well, that's the great thing about physics. Because of gravity, the lower limit on power is mgh/t where m is the mass of the rider, g is the acceleration due to gravity, h is the total elevation gain, and t is time. Since the gravity field is constant and static, there's no complex path integrals involved.

In other words, to climb a hill you must expend this much power at a minimum.

And it's easy to improve that calculation by making conservative estimates of other losses such as aerodynamic drag.

No voodoo or withcraft, just elementary science. The biggest unknown always seems to be total weight (riders don't like to publish number because it will let you calculate power output) and can add some uncertainty.

Also the numbers are pretty clear that within margins of error, Contador put out some unreal amounts of power on Verbier.

John Swanson

Thank-you I couldn't have said it any better (or even nearly as well) myself.
What is this "withcraft" that you speak of?:D
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Race Radio said:
It is only another attempt to derail a thread by the resident troll. In his crazy world the more inaccurate info he posts the more people pay attention to him.

Answering a point about the effects of EPO is an attempt to derail the thread? Methinks you are trolling again, RR.

While some here like to propagate unsupported theories that professional athletes do not benefit as much from EPO as the average person there is nothing that would indicate that this is the case. In fact many think just the opposite is true.

David Millar's position on the subject.

You youself have said before that pro-athletes don't benefit as much as regular people, given they are already good responders at the top of their game - that's why you don't see dramatic differences between the top riders from year to year - so you must be changing your tune.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ScienceIsCool said:
Well, that's the great thing about physics. Because of gravity, the lower limit on power is mgh/t where m is the mass of the rider, g is the acceleration due to gravity, h is the total elevation gain, and t is time. Since the gravity field is constant and static, there's no complex path integrals involved.

In other words, to climb a hill you must expend this much power at a minimum.

And it's easy to improve that calculation by making conservative estimates of other losses such as aerodynamic drag.

No voodoo or withcraft, just elementary science. The biggest unknown always seems to be total weight (riders don't like to publish number because it will let you calculate power output) and can add some uncertainty.

Also the numbers are pretty clear that within margins of error, Contador put out some unreal amounts of power on Verbier.

John Swanson

But look at all the different factors that go into it. This post about the Contador issue is a real head F. Not a simple or reliable business.
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/07/tour-2009-contador-climb.html
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Great White said:
Answering a point about the effects of EPO is an attempt to derail the thread?....
But you didn't talk about the effects of EPO - you brought in Dr. Coyles discredited work on Armstrong to show how LA improved by 6% (sic).

If you wish to argue on Dr. Coyles tests then you should bring it up on the thread I quoted earlier.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts