Armstrong's numbers

[Anonymous]

I lived and raced in Spain for two years. I read the Spanish sites often. NOBODY thinks Contador is clean. They seldom bring it up as it is obvious. This is the same reason why you seldom hear Americans seldom question the cleanliness of the NFL, it is seen as a given that doping is part of the job.

I mean, shit, we called JV out on Wiggins and his interest in Contador right on this very forum. I am pretty sure many here understand the extent of doping in the pro peloton. See, this isn't DPF where you have to have pictures of the person with a needle in their arm to even suggest doping. I think maybe ChrisE has been living in PC world too long. Leave the sheltered environs of DPF a bit and actually do what you said you did ChrisE, actually READ the posts here. I think you will see that your petty little rant is misplaced and ignorant.

 

[Race Radio]

And, I don't buy the $ can buy the best program crap. Right, he had all the $ in 99 to win the his first. That right there blows that argument out of the water.
.

Armstrong was a millionaire in 1999. It was also still in the "Top Fuel" era. Your limitations were how your body reacted to dope, not the ability to keep it from detection.

Operation Puerto proved that the sport has moved far beyond just taking a shot of EPO. The complexity and expense is significant, to discount it would be myopic.

 

[ChrisE]

Obviously you don't read many of the posts here. And I have no desire to read your post anywhere. Look up the definition of "tool." I am guessing you didn't know someone stole your picture.

I'm talking about the vitriol. This forum didn't exist in 2007 so I agree the direction of my post is misplaced. Contador doesn't post his values, and gets treated "badly" by LA, and I would bet he got alot of sympathy in July in here. Yes, I will investigate.

I don't follow the part in bold above. Care to elaborate?

 

[ChrisE]

Armstrong was a millionaire in 1999. It was also still in the "Top Fuel" era. Your limitations were how your body reacted to dope, not the ability to keep it from detection.

Operation Puerto proved that the sport has moved far beyond just taking a shot of EPO. The complexity and expense is significant, to discount it would be myopic.

Please post a link to somewhere backing your up you claim about his financial status in 1999. Thanks.

Sorry, I think all the top riders are on an even plane. YMMV.

 

[ChrisE]

I mean, shit, we called JV out on Wiggins and his interest in Contador right on this very forum. I am pretty sure many here understand the extent of doping in the pro peloton. See, this isn't DPF where you have to have pictures of the person with a needle in their arm to even suggest doping. I think maybe ChrisE has been living in PC world too long. Leave the sheltered environs of DPF a bit and actually do what you said you did ChrisE, actually READ the posts here. I think you will see that your petty little rant is misplaced and ignorant.

I think you need to read a little slower next time TFF. I promise to type slower if you do that.....maybe you can keep up. Thanks.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Chris - it is always good to have some new blood in the Clinic (boom,boom) - however I dont think you have taken the time to read through the many different opinions on this forum.

A lot of riders here have been discussed - and Contador has got a torrid time because he refuses to reveal his Bio-passport.

As for LA - I would be shocked if he did the Giro clean. He released Catlin in February - for me that is when the programme kicked in.
I believe this thread and the one 'debating his numbers' would have quickly died had it not been for the persistence of BPC to spin through the thread.

If you had gone further back in the posts you would find that Scott SoCal was someone who believed the Armstrong myth until very recently- as indeed we probably all did at one time or other.
So, again people have views and most are open to having those views challenged when new information is available.

As TFF has said I have no intention of going on to another forum to check your signature - if you have a view that you wish to share than by all means post it here.

I think you may have started off a bit abrasive - I believe if you take the time to get to know the different styles and opinions of the different posters that this is an excellent site for those wishing to engage in debate and learn more about the sport.

 

[BikeCentric]

Please post a link to somewhere backing your up you claim about his financial status in 1999. Thanks.

Read Lance Armstrong's book "It's not about the bike;" he makes his quite wealthy status from bike racing quite clear in the first 20 or 30 pages of the book.

 

[Cobber]

Chris - it is always good to have some new blood in the Clinic (boom,boom) - however I dont think you have taken the time to read through the many different opinions on this forum.

A lot of riders here have been discussed - and Contador has got a torrid time because he refuses to reveal his Bio-passport.

As for LA - I would be shocked if he did the Giro clean. He released Catlin in February - for me that is when the programme kicked in.
I believe this thread and the one 'debating his numbers' would have quickly died had it not been for the persistence of BPC to spin through the thread.

If you had gone further back in the posts you would find that Scott SoCal was someone who believed the Armstrong myth until very recently- as indeed we probably all did at one time or other.
So, again people have views and most are open to having those views challenged when new information is available.

As TFF has said I have no intention of going on to another forum to check your signature - if you have a view that you wish to share than by all means post it here.

I think you may have started off a bit abrasive - I believe if you take the time to get to know the different styles and opinions of the different posters that this is an excellent site for those wishing to engage in debate and learn more about the sport.

+1... great post, as always, Dr Mas.

 

[Race Radio]

Please post a link to somewhere backing your up you claim about his financial status in 1999. Thanks.

Sorry, I think all the top riders are on an even plane. YMMV.

Guess you forgot about Armstrong winning $1,000,000 for winning the Thrift drug triple crown....and then NOT sharing it with his teammates. He also had a Salary of $600,000 per year with Cofidis....which they paid him 75% of, contrary to Armstrong's claim. Because of his 4th place finish in the Vuelta and UCI points his incentive laden contract with USPS paid him $600,000 in 1998. He also had endorsement from Nike, Oakley, and Giro. Finally he had a $1,000,000 long term disability insurance policy that he could fall back on.

How is the plane even if one rider takes EPO and sees a 3% increase in power and another rider takes it and sees a 13% increase?

 

[ChrisE]

Maseratti - My response saying find my posts was a response to Socal saying I thought doping was OK. I asked him to find proof of that, and pointed him in a direction where he would have the best luck. That is not my belief. Now this is the second time I shared that so hopefully that is enough.

I don't prescribe to the doping starting when Caitlin was dismissed. It probably started before then. It's all conjecture you know....I just don't buy a 38 yr old can finish 12th in a GT 3 years out of retirement and losing training due to a broken collarbone 1 month prior.

Bikecentric - I read the book. I seem to recall he was down to little money when he came back in 98/99. It's been 8 years since I read it. I may be wrong and that read was many brain cells ago. If I am wrong then a positive will result: TFF can call me ignorant lol. I will go check it out. Regardless, you think he was wealthier than other top riders during that time?

RR - I don't discount the result of $ in doping. I think that it was a level playing field with the top riders of the top teams. I don't believe LA had better dope than JU or Beloki, or any of the others. YMMV.

 

[UnBanProCycling]

A lot of riders here have been discussed - and Contador has got a torrid time because he refuses to reveal his Bio-passport.

Hardly. Contador breaks all known power records and doesn't release his passport and there is very little talk about him here. I know you're very sensitive about being associated too strongly with some of the people here so I will say that I don't count you are being the worst, but there are a lot of people here who have personality issues with Armstrong and attack him irrationally and unreasonably. They admit to being banned for other forums for their attacks on Armstrong. To pretend they're just trying to get at the truth is nonsense - some are, but there are clearly some hardcore haters here. Lets not pretend otherwise.

Some even try to claim he was doped for the Giro despite Armstrong having absolutely clean numbers no evidence at all to back up this claim.

As for LA - I would be shocked if he did the Giro clean.

Oh dear.

I believe this thread and the one 'debating his numbers' would have quickly died had it not been for the persistence of BPC to spin through the thread

.

I doubt it. People seem to quite enjoy having the clinic as an echo chamber where they reinforce each others views and gang up on the outsiders who dare to question the orthodoxy view. There is a cult aspect to it. They don't need somebody putting some basic counter points for this to happen.

If you had gone further back in the posts you would find that Scott SoCal was someone who believed the Armstrong myth until very recently- as indeed we probably all did at one time or other.

Firstly calling Armstrong a "myth" is trollery, of course, since there is no evidence that Armstrong ever did anything that gave him an unfair advantage over his GC competitors. Also it's not true for you to assert that most people here supported Armstrong at one time. I highly doubt that is the case for the likes of TTF, Blackcat and RaceRadio. I doubt Scott SoCal was a fan either - all he does is attack people who disagree with him; he seems to be here more for the gang element than for the sport.

As TFF has said I have no intention of going on to another forum to check your signature - if you have a view that you wish to share than by all means post it here. I think you may have started off a bit abrasive - I believe if you take the time to get to know the different styles and opinions of the different posters that this is an excellent site for those wishing to engage in debate and learn more about the sport.

I think your patronising tone and assertions weren't the politest way to start the discussion either.

 

[Race Radio]

Hardly. Contador breaks all known power records and doesn't release his passport and there is very little talk about him here.

Pat Mcquaid said Contador's numbers were good and he was clean, what more do you need?

You are clearly ignoring all the threads questioning Contadors sudden power increase and ablity as a TT rider. His climbing at Verbier, The bags of blood in Fuentes fridge with AC on it. The slip of paper in Fuentes wallet with AC written on it....along with Contador's phone number.

There has been plenty of talk of AC here. To pretend there isn't is nothing more then an attempt to bait others in another useless discussion.

 

[ChrisE]

Guess you forgot about Armstrong winning $1,000,000 for winning the Thrift drug triple crown....and then NOT sharing it with his teammates. He also had a Salary of $600,000 per year with Cofidis....which they paid him 75% of, contrary to Armstrong's claim. Because of his 4th place finish in the Vuelta and UCI points his incentive laden contract with USPS paid him $600,000 in 1998. He also had endorsement from Nike, Oakley, and Giro. Finally he had a $1,000,000 long term disability insurance policy that he could fall back on.

How is the plane even if one rider takes EPO and sees a 3% increase in power and another rider takes it and sees a 13% increase?

Please provide links to the Cofidis deal, and to where he didn't share the Thrift with teamates. Not that I don't believe you, but I like a little more than gossip on a forum. I am sure these economic issues are documented somewhere. Thanks.

How did he do so well in the Vuelta? Even assuming all of the above you think he had more in the bank than the others?

I could give a rats *** about the effect on EPO on one vs the other. Being ****ed about that is so misplaced and childish I will respond no further on that. Besides, is it just EPO or some extravagant voodoo cocktail Ferrari cooked up that nobody else can afford or are aware of lol? You guys are losing me here with this inconsistency.

 

[UnBanProCycling]

Finally he had a $1,000,000 long term disability insurance policy that he could fall back on.

Presumably he could only get that if he had a long term disability. I doubt he was any richer than the other top names of the time. Doping back then was done through the teams anyway I don't think an individual's money was the greatest factor.

How is the plane even if one rider takes EPO and sees a 3% increase in power and another rider takes it and sees a 13% increase?

But I asked you to quote me where it said that in the article and you couldn't. You also said such a result was unlikely amongst pros - it was a test of eight people of varying levels of fitness. Not a very solid basis for your assertion.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Chris - this was the part I was refering to

...Go read my post on DPF in the feedback "signature" thread. Then, look in the mirror.

As I stated - if you wish to share it with us by all means.

Also - at no point did I say what your particular position was re doping or anti-doping.

I gave my example on LA doping in the Giro as you had made a broad assumption that it was the accepted view of all here that he was clean.

 

[UnBanProCycling]

Pat Mcquaid said Contador's numbers were good and he was clean, what more do you need?

I'm not convinced Contador was not clean, but for you guys not to be going nuts about him is bizarre.

At the very least it shows you why it's wrong to release numbers and have people trying to pull them apart all over the world. As Wiggins has learnt, you can't win on that - the moral of the story is clear.

 

[ChrisE]

Chris - this was the part I was refering to



As I stated - if you wish to share it with us by all means.

Also - at no point did I say what your particular position was re doping or anti-doping.

I gave my example on LA doping in the Giro as you had made a broad assumption that it was the accepted view of all here that he was clean.

Fair enough. For the record, I think LA gets alot more grief than he deserves. I think the playing field was/is even. I think alot of posters live to dislike the guy and it's pathetic. Nothing more than that.

I did not make a broad assumption. Somebody posted that somewhere else about the giro, and I find it laughable. Nothing more than that.

 

[Race Radio]

Presumably he could only get that if he had a long term disability. I doubt he was any richer than the other top names of the time. Doping back then was done through the teams anyway I don't think an individual's money was the greatest factor.



But I asked you to quote me where it said that in the article and you couldn't. You also said such a result was unlikely amongst pros - it was a test of eight people of varying levels of fitness. Not a very solid basis for your assertion.

Didn't you learn anything from your ban? You are trolling again. I gave you a study, which you ignored.

 

[UnBanProCycling]

Didn't you learn anything from your ban? You are trolling again. I gave you a study, which you ignored.

No I answered it in the post below it. You then ignored my counter questions/points.

 

[Race Radio]

Fair enough. For the record, I think LA gets alot more grief than he deserves. I think the playing field was/is even. I think alot of posters live to dislike the guy and it's pathetic. Nothing more than that.

I did not make a broad assumption. Somebody posted that somewhere else about the giro, and I find it laughable. Nothing more than that.

I will ask again. How is the playing field even if riders respond differently to drugs?

 

[UnBanProCycling]

I will ask again. How is the playing field even if riders respond differently to drugs?

There is no real evidence for that though. It's just become a mantra of yours. Like the word 'troll'.

 

[Race Radio]

No I answered it in the post below it. You then ignored my counter questions/points.

You have answered nothing. I provided you with with a study that showed a 3-18% difference in fit riders. There are similar studies with multiple drugs show wide ranges in response's. A good one is the use of Sildenafil at altitude. For some athletes there was a huge improvement, in others nothing,

If you believe there is no difference in response rate you are welcome to share with us a study that shows this.....otherwise you are just trolling as usual.

 

[BikeCentric]

Firstly calling Armstrong a "myth" is trollery, of course, since there is no evidence that Armstrong ever did anything that gave him an unfair advantage over his GC competitors. Also it's not true for you to assert that most people here supported Armstrong at one time. I highly doubt that is the case for the likes of TTF, Blackcat and RaceRadio. I doubt Scott SoCal was a fan either - all he does is attack people who disagree with him; he seems to be here more for the gang element than for the sport.

Guess what jerky? Armstrong is the guy who inspired me to start racing a bike in the first place back in '99. I had an LA poster on the wall and a copy of the '01 Tour on DVD so I could show people how cool "The Look" was. Now I'm a hater, because a one Mr. Armstrong proved that assholery triumphs over inspiration.

 

[elapid]

Fair enough. For the record, I think LA gets alot more grief than he deserves. I think the playing field was/is even. I think alot of posters live to dislike the guy and it's pathetic. Nothing more than that.

I did not make a broad assumption. Somebody posted that somewhere else about the giro, and I find it laughable. Nothing more than that.

I don't agree that Lance gets more grief than he deserves. Lance is brash and arrogant and his media image is controlling and manipulative. His actions against the likes of Bassons and Simoni in the past, and more recently his actions during the TdF (publicly discussing dramas within Astana, twittering, etc) were immature and cast Lance as a person that is deserving of everything dished out to him. While I admire Lance for certain facets of his career, this is outweighed by his public image, support of Omerta, and doping.

The playing field is not equal. Richer riders can afford better programs and better drugs. This is probably why lesser cyclists are caught in doping tests and when top riders are caught it is often because of busts like the Festina Affair and Operation Puerto. Athletes also respond differently to EPO and blood transfusions compared to drugs used in the pre-EPO era. So the current playing field is by no means equal.

 

[BikeCentric]

Please provide links to the Cofidis deal, and to where he didn't share the Thrift with teamates. Not that I don't believe you, but I like a little more than gossip on a forum. I am sure these economic issues are documented somewhere. Thanks.

How did he do so well in the Vuelta? Even assuming all of the above you think he had more in the bank than the others?

I could give a rats *** about the effect on EPO on one vs the other. Being ****ed about that is so misplaced and childish I will respond no further on that. Besides, is it just EPO or some extravagant voodoo cocktail Ferrari cooked up that nobody else can afford or are aware of lol? You guys are losing me here with this inconsistency.

Great, another *** with zero knowledge of anything related to the subject has joined the discussion. This forum blows.