Chris Carmichael: "Lance will match & Exceed AC Speed"

[Dr. Maserati]

Were all of the contenders using EPO in the late 90s? If so, did they need to in order to win? If that was the case, isn't the argument that LA doped because he discovered in his early career he could not compete against PED dependent GT contenders? Now if the previous answers are all affirmative - how can the same argument be used to state he was a mediocre rider at best when competing on a level playing field without EPO? The logic of the argument escapes me.

Being honest I am not quite sure of your question.

Also I never said mediocre - in fact i have acknowledged he was an excellent rider in one day events, as in the Classics.

However he showed no ability in stage races as he would have at least one bad day (usually in the mountains) that would kill off any chance of a high finish in a GT, so he would then concentrate on stage wins.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Being honest I am not quite sure of your question.

Also I never said mediocre - in fact i have acknowledged he was an excellent rider in one day events, as in the Classics.

However he showed no ability in stage races as he would have at least one bad day (usually in the mountains) that would kill off any chance of a high finish in a GT, so he would then concentrate on stage wins.

I actually do not remember you specifically indicating he was a mediocre rider (although I do remember a couple of others being very adamant on the subject) - however, I believe I picked up on the thought that he would not have been a decent GT rider because of not being able to sustain performance without EPO during stage racing. I understood that you, and many others, certain that most of the high placed riders in the GTs were using EPO during the 1990s in order to perform without having a bad day or three.

Again, and I may have misread your prior posts, I thought you were of the impression that Pantani, Ulrich, Beloki and most of the other top contenders were using EPO based on later positive test results, admissions, and performance. As mentioned a couple of posts above this, LA was introduced to Dr. Ferrari in 1995, shortly before his first retirement from the sport. So, the argument stating that LA was not capable of competing until he got hooked up with EPO seems to have a counter suggestion that he might have been competitive if the other contenders from 1993 to 1995 would have been as clean as a pre-Ferrari Armstrong.

 

[blackcat]

Iwas alluding to Carmichael using kids as guinea pigs by injecting them with drugs while lying to them what was in the injections. Maybe the Mengele label is too strong, but Carmichael is a dirt bag. His lack of ethics is mind boggling. He and the other coaches who were doing this should be doing hard time in prison.

Extract of cortisone. I knew what you were referencing Bro and considered the comparison or synonym perfectly felicitious, albeit using license.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I actually do not remember you specifically indicating he was a mediocre rider (although I do remember a couple of others being very adamant on the subject) - however, I believe I picked up on the thought that he would not have been a decent GT rider because of not being able to sustain performance without EPO during stage racing. I understood that you, and many others, certain that most of the high placed riders in the GTs were using EPO during the 1990s in order to perform without having a bad day or three.

Again, and I may have misread your prior posts, I thought you were of the impression that Pantani, Ulrich, Beloki and most of the other top contenders were using EPO based on later positive test results, admissions, and performance. As mentioned a couple of posts above this, LA was introduced to Dr. Ferrari in 1995, shortly before his first retirement from the sport. So, the argument stating that LA was not capable of competing until he got hooked up with EPO seems to have a counter suggestion that he might have been competitive if the other contenders from 1993 to 1995 would have been as clean as a pre-Ferrari Armstrong.

No - I most definitely do suggest that all those riders were on some sort of doping programme.

Let me add - he was a mediocre stage race rider but a very good one day racer, two very different disciplines.

Being honest I still don't get your point - or are you trying to suggest that in a clean peloton Armstrong would still have succeeded?

 

[blackcat]

No - I most definitely do suggest that all those riders were on some sort of doping programme.

Let me add - he was a mediocre stage race rider but a very good one day racer, two very different disciplines.

Being honest I still don't get your point - or are you trying to suggest that in a clean peloton Armstrong would still have succeeded?

no, the fanboys wish to have it both ways.

they make the argument, that Armstrong entered a "hot" peloton, so he could not come on the podium in his first few Tours, until he tweaked his medical program and competed on the same playing field. There is a validity to this, the GT medical program involves recovery doping par excellence, so you require an systematic team program. Only a few like Rumsas have done it renegade imo. Wiggins and Vande Velde perhaps.

But they also wish to invoke "Armstrong was youngest ever World Champ" as imprimatur on his unparalleled pedigree. Well, can't have it both ways.

Armstrong was always doing everything he could thru his career. Two things changed, one the Ferrari expertise, and secondly the intra GT recovery program. Bingo.

Look how pack fodder like Levi Leipheimer can transform into Tour winner pedigree. In my mind, he was the winner in 2007 when Rass went. Take out his 20 second time penalty, and make Pistolero work for Levi, and Levi beats Evans and Pistolero by 60 seconds. If Rass stays in, Rass wins, unless his first time gain was neutralised on that breakaway stage.

So, was Armstrong hamstrung by entering a "hot" peloton, unlike Lemond, who was not competing against EPO fuelled rivals at the start of his career, or was Armstrong charged at the start, because he won Worlds remember?

So the fanbois really should acknowledge Armstrong was doing everything in his power, EPO, androgens, the works, using the arsenal in performance enhancement at the start of his career. He came up thru Carmichael, and he knew how the game was played. He won worlds.

It just required Ferrari, to transform him. He had the key. Then the intra Tour doping (recover) schedule. And Bingo you have a Tour winner.

What did Beloki ever do outside Saiz' program. What did IGG do for that matter? Lots of those Spanish "talents" are decidedly mediocre. Lots of riders, like Levi Leipheimer, are mediocre without the gear.

The gear is a gamechanger. Add Ferrari to the equation, it is a Tour winning potion.

 

[Digger]

Were all of the contenders using EPO in the late 90s? If so, did they need to in order to win? If that was the case, isn't the argument that LA doped because he discovered in his early career he could not compete against PED dependent GT contenders? Now if the previous answers are all affirmative - how can the same argument be used to state he was a mediocre rider at best when competing on a level playing field without EPO? The logic of the argument escapes me.

Which adds to the 'counter counter' argument that he was not, as some claim, cleaner in later years, when we know his rivals were blood doping, yet he still dominated.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Once again, I'd like to compliment folks on the quality of this evening session.

Apart from Sprocket's ridiculous rubbish, it shows that, while never the twain shall meet, an intelligent debate does not have to degenerate into name calling ridicule.
CentralCaliBike: Just to enforce the point that others have made regarding your list of 7 riders.
4 of them rode in direct competition with Merckx, which makes their palmares even more remarkable.

Indurain was product of the 90's and the final two, confirmed dopers.
Delgardo even managing to get caught, while in the process of winning his Tour.
Unfortunately, a different era, with a difference perception.

Rather than making a case for Lance, it strengthens the case against him.

 

[Digger]

Strickly looking at the age of a first (and often only) TdF win since 1970

Indurain:
27 years old, first TdF win

Degado:
28 years old, first TdF win (top ten finisher next five years)

Roche:
27 years old, first TdF win

Joop Zoetemelk:
33 years old, first TdF win (World Championship winner at age 38)

Lucien Van Impe:
29 years old, first TdF win

Bernard Thévenet:
27 years old, first TdF win

Luis Ocaña:
28 years old, first TdF win

At 27, LA is not that different in respect to age at time of first win to the above riders.

Yes but the whole point about lance is that he went from losing 20 mins on a regular basis in mountain stages, 6 minutes a time on 60 km TT and dropped out of stage the Tour, to suddenly winning.
These riders, and I would like to put an asterisk beside Inudrain, all had gradual progressions to the top ten and top five. Lance, gets cancer, doesn't lose weight by the way, had an average team in 1999 (this later changed), and kicks the sh** out of other known EPO users.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Were all of the contenders using EPO in the late 90s? If so, did they need to in order to win? If that was the case, isn't the argument that LA doped because he discovered in his early career he could not compete against PED dependent GT contenders? Now if the previous answers are all affirmative - how can the same argument be used to state he was a mediocre rider at best when competing on a level playing field without EPO? The logic of the argument escapes me.

Indeed. This is what David Walsh's books state. Motorola adopted the; "If you can't beat them, join them." philosophy.
I don't think anybody riding clean in the 90s had a cat in hells chance of winning.

Whatever my personal opinion of Armstrong, I would never class him as mediocre. Had he not had his "life changing" cancer, he would probably have won a hatful of hilly classics and some shorter stage races.

Climbing the Alps faster than anyone and knocking 6 minutes of his ITT times, though? No, not a chance, clean.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Indeed. This is what David Walsh's books state. Motorola adopted the; "If you can't beat them, join them." philosophy.
I don't think anybody riding clean in the 90s had a cat in hells chance of winning.

Whatever my personal opinion of Armstrong, I would never class him as mediocre. Had he not had his "life changing" cancer, he would probably have won a hatful of hilly classics and some shorter stage races.

Exactly - in his first Tour Armstrong had Phil Anderson riding alongside to look after him on the first two mountain stages before LA abandoned as was the pre race plan. They lost 21 minutes the first day and 28 the second.

Anderson assessment was- "He was a one day rider.I thought he could never, ever, win the Tour de France, even he thought he couldn't win the Tour. He couldn't climb and couldn't time-trial, two things you have to do to win the Tour."

 

[python]

Indeed a very informative discussion and I’d like to particularly complement ccb for asking good questions (which wasn’t a big surprise) but also suggesting answers and offering considered opinions and research (a pleasant surprise).

Back to the substance.

Were all of the contenders using EPO in the late 90s?

we don’t know for sure because the epo test did not exist yet but the overwhelming circumstantial evidence suggests an unequivocal affirmative. let me just make an important note - we should be focused on blood doping in gts not the classics as there is hardly anyone who did not acknowledge armstrong’s potential in one day or short tour events.

If so, did they need to in order to win?

the affirmative above leads to this affirmative. or it’d be more accurate to say they [the contenders] believed they needed epo. they more or less knew it was an epo arms race. again we are talking about gts as that’s were epo effect was shown to be particularly powerful.

If that was the case, isn't the argument that LA doped because he discovered in his early career he could not compete against PED dependent GT contenders?

good you mentioned gt this time. but you made a slight error in your question that could lead to vastly incorrect conclusions. not peds in general but we'r talking about epo specifically. only armstrong knows what exactly drove him to dope. we can only deduce some reasonable answers from the multiple sources. yes, it is quite likely he saw others being fueled and felt he needed to keep up. it is also quite reasonable to assume that having a relentlessly competitive and aggressive nature would have lead him the doping road anyway (“winning at all costs”). the latter means it was a question of searching for a better more perfect program (epo) rather than suddenly breaking with his moral purity and starting a doping program. either way, the reason WHY he doped is irrelevant. the important thing is - the overwhelming circumstantial evidence suggests armstrong was not an ethical saint, was super competitive, was capable of doping and indeed doped both early on and during the string of the later tdf victories. being compelled to dope does not remove the illegality or justifies his denials. it only lead him to search for the superior program and finally finding ferrari. i will give you that prior to cancer armstrong either did not use epo or used it incorrectly. i am positive he used steroids and corticosteroids before cancer.

Now if the previous answers are all affirmative - how can the same argument be used to state he was a mediocre rider at best when competing on a level playing field without EPO? The logic of the argument escapes me

that’s where your argument goes astray. on two levels. as i showed above, few will argue that the three previous answers are all affirmative. few will argue that armstrong was an elite rider capable of winning classics. but remember you and others were discussing gts not classics. you discussed the role of proper epo use in gts not just peds. yes pre-cancer the evidence of armstrong being a mediocre gt rider is overwhelming. his support team role is of minor importance because had he showed any gt talent, he'd be offered a different role. his sub par gt performance was likely the consequence of him lacking the natural recovery ability coupled with his lack of (yes it’s possible) or (more likely) improper epo program. those old fashioned steroids just don’t provide the same recovery. it was not until he meets a hematologist par excellence dr ferrari that armstrong’s gt record takes off. ferrari was indeed a rare bird who could put it all together - blood researcher, physiologist, team physician, competitive athlete, mathematician’s mind, coach. he figured it out - effective dose, avoidance dose, time frames, ad establishment connections - all intertwined with superb science based training programs backed up by the medical (hct etc) and physiological (VO2max, Lt etc) testing. and ferrari never met a chemical hyper responder like armstrong.

a rare occurrence - a genius doping doc meets a genius hyper responder to drugs.

add armstrong’s talent, brains and drive to the mix and you have all the answers.

 

[Rominger]

Carmichael is 100% correct. It is well documented that, as they near 40 and especially after a 3 yr layoff, cyclists make dramatic increases in their ability to accelerate and sustain an attack. These increases are even more profound for a rider who has mastered the art of cadence instead of spending his 30's grinding big gears. Typical that you haters cannot see that.

Totally agree with you there, from 2005 to 2008 he slowed right down (hell I never even saw his name in the results anymore) and then made a huge leap forward in speed in 2009 to get back onto the tour podium

 

[icefire]

Well, let's just saying putting Indurain on that list sort of proves the other point. Clearly a guy who benefitted from EPO later in his career.

While not denying this, it seems to me that there are some knowledge gaps about Indurain's early career:

Age 19: National Champion in the Road Race for U23
Becomes Pro at 20
Age 20: Wins ITT in Tour de l'Avenir
Age 20: 2nd in Vuelta prologue. Youngest ever yellow jersey wearer (4 days), a record he still holds
Age 22: Finishes his first TdF
Age 22: Wins 2 ITTs and GC in Tour de l'Avenir
Age 22: Wins Vuelta a los Valles Mineros, a hilly 5-days stage race in Asturias
Age 24: Wins Volta a Catalunya, 7-days stage race
Age 24: Wins Paris-Nice
Age 25: Wins mountain stage in TdF (Cauterets)
Age 25: Wins ITT in Criterium International
Age 25: Wins Paris-Nice
Age 25: 3rd in Flèche Wallonne
Age 25: 7th in Vuelta a España
Age 26: 2nd in TdF ITT. Wins mountain stage in Luz Ardiden. Finishes 10th at 12' 47" of Lemond. It is estimated that he lost about 12 minutes working for his team leader Delgado
http://translate.google.com/transla...o/1228124670.html&sl=es&tl=en&history_state0=
Age 26: Wins Clasica de San Sebastian
Age 26: 2nd in Vuelta a España, lost time to winner Mauri in 2 TTTs and 2 ITTs, queen stage suspended due to snow.

The rest after this is well known. I'm not sure we can say that he came out of nowhere. He did not progress uniformly is his GT standings, but we cannot say that of his TT ability or his results in 1-week stage races including hard climbs. He did never ride well under cold/rainy weather (Vuelta was in April at that time and the weather in the mountains is awful at that season of the year), and for the Tour he had a clear boss (Delgado) until 1990.

 

[blackcat]

don't know if Armstrong was a "genius hyper responder".

Have a look circa 2001, and Rumsas performance. Net out the tt. He gave up about 5 minutes to Armstrong.

Give all of Armstrong's advantages to Rumsas, and all of Rumsas' disadvantages to Armstrong.

Now use the example of Beloki.

Now hear Race Radio, who tells of Udo Bolts saying Ullrich went backwards in pre-season training camps, before he was on a course of EPO.

I just think Armstrong had the cutting edge medicine all the time, and the best doc, and then the 35 injections per stage recovery program.

Armstrong did all the fine-tuning, with all the resources.

That is where the stars were aligned. Have a look at Basso, after he met the fine-tuning and resources, he had matched Armstrong on the GC. He only had to neutralise the chrono, which he was closing fast and would have by the next year.

Look at Landis. Mediocre NORBA rider on a mtb.

Armstrong was the beneficiary of the mythology, the rings, and the apotheosis. He won young, a title that the N American fan could associate with - "world champion". He got cancer. He beat cancer. He won the Tour, the only race the N American public would bother with on the Today Show and Letterman/Leno.

Once Armstrong scaled the mountain, he had all the resources. And he could put the final piece on the fine-tuning. Unparalleled resources for July.

Infinite resources
+ Ferrari
+ best recovery doping plan

= the best package, by aways.

All in all, Armstrong brought an MBA strategy to the sport. Not in terms of profit and loss, and ledgers, not in terms of selling. But in terms of sizing up your market, where you can leverage your advantage, investing resources for a big ROI.

Arbitrage Spanish/Portuguese/Eastern European riders, to keep the wage bill down even. But that was not the prime motive for the team members. They took Heras off the table as he could have been a threat.

You require a certain type of character for the Armstrong role. You need the talent. And you need someone who can justify the investment. This is chicken/egg thing. Which comes first, cos one needs to win the Tour to command the resources.

You cannot bring Jan Ullrich in to invest in, and give him all the resources, because he is too flaky (in the nicest way possible). You need someone who is good for the dollar.

Landis was good. He also was a face to sell to the US market. But he was his own man, and jumped ship. Certain amount of respect there to Landis for that.

Contador would have come to the point, 2 or 3 wins down the track, where he had 4 or 5 Tour wins, and threatened Armstrong's Tour legacy, where Bruyneel and Armstrong would have looked to undermine Contador. As it so happens, Armstrong returned. I do not know if he returned with the first point to really deny Contador a chance to go on a Tour rampage. Utterly futile one would think.

Andy Schleck will be one to watch. Perhaps Robert Gesink, Armstrong will try and get his hands on one of those two riders in the medium term, because Contador cannot usurp his legacy (in his eyes).

 

[python]

why ferrari and recovery program should be different?

proper epo use is the cornerstone of any gt recovery and ferrari was the best in the field. sure it could have been in addition to several other components (hgh, designer steroids, vitamin and eaa injections etc).

regarding armstrong being hyper responsive to drugs. it's well known that different humans respond differently to different dosages and schedules. some get high on one beer some will down a 6 pack and drive home. some need 5 cups of coffee to wake up some will throw up drinking just one. an immunologist friend of mine who worked in cancer research believes armstrong is a hyper responder and his perfect response to chemo is yet another piece of evidence.

armstrong's program in later years was fine tuned with or without ferrari.

 

[icefire]

...

Contador would have come to the point, 2 or 3 wins down the track, where he had 4 or 5 Tour wins, and threatened Armstrong's Tour legacy, where Bruyneel and Armstrong would have looked to undermine Contador. As it so happens, Armstrong returned. I do not know if he returned with the first point to really deny Contador a chance to go on a Tour rampage. Utterly futile one would think.

Andy Schleck will be one to watch. Perhaps Robert Gesink, Armstrong will try and get his hands on one of those two riders in the medium term, because Contador cannot usurp his legacy (in his eyes).

Very well stated. Armstrong may see Contador as a threat for his legacy, whatever that means, but he should better teach his science to younger riders (Schleck, Gesink) rather than trying himself to stop the Pistolero.

As for Bruyneel, if he's also up to the game for the long term, he's definitely living in the past and fighting himself. We'll see how long the game lasts and how it goes.

 

[Cerberus]

regarding armstrong being hyper responsive to drugs. it's well known that different humans respond differently to different dosages and schedules. some get high on one beer some will down a 6 pack and drive home. some need 5 cups of coffee to wake up some will throw up drinking just one. an immunologist friend of mine who worked in cancer research believes armstrong is a hyper responder and his perfect response to chemo is yet another piece of evidence.

Are you saying there is a link between response to chemo and EPO. Sorry, but I have a great deal of trouble buying that notion. Did you immunologist friend explain where he was getting that notion from?

 

[python]

Are you saying there is a link between response to chemo and EPO. Sorry, but I have a great deal of trouble buying that notion. Did you immunologist friend explain where he was getting that notion from?

you can buy what you wish. i said there is a general link between a patient being responsive to chemo and recovery from cancer. epo was an integral part of armstrong's recovery from cancer along with chemo. his immune system was responsive.

 

[blackcat]

why ferrari and recovery program should be different?

proper epo use is the cornerstone of any gt recovery and ferrari was the best in the field. sure it could have been in addition to several other components (hgh, designer steroids, vitamin and eaa injections etc).

regarding armstrong being hyper responsive to drugs. it's well known that different humans respond differently to different dosages and schedules. some get high on one beer some will down a 6 pack and drive home. some need 5 cups of coffee to wake up some will throw up drinking just one. an immunologist friend of mine who worked in cancer research believes armstrong is a hyper responder and his perfect response to chemo is yet another piece of evidence.

armstrong's program in later years was fine tuned with or without ferrari.

Ferrari is a haematologist, but no doubt he will have expertise across the spectrum of doping performance enhancement.

But recovery doping is different.

They target the physiological systems if I am correct.

CNS (central nervous system)
Circulatory: Haematological Cardiac Aerobic - lungs/breathing (salbutamol)

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/tour-like-a-mobile-pharmacy-10544/?mp=0

Ferrari gets the engine prepped. But you need to service it during the Tour. Think Ferrari's expertise lies in the former. No doubt he has skill in the latter. But I think the Spanish sports docs, that have been around since Indurain, will have skill with the intra-Tour gear.

 

[Cerberus]

you can buy what you wish. i said there is a general link between a patient being responsive to chemo and recovery from cancer. epo was an integral part of armstrong's recovery from cancer along with chemo. his immune system was responsive.

Yes, I know that EPO is used in cancer treatment, but I still don't see where the argument is? The fact the LA survived is hardly convincing evidence that his response to one element of cancer treatment, being EPO, is particularly good. So if there is in fact an argument could you spell it out for me? What part of LA's recovery from cancer suggests that his response to EPO is better than average and why?

 

[pmcg76]

In early 1996 in an interview with Winning magazine, Lance admitted that he didnt think he could ever win the Tour. He just didnt have the capabilities so if he asid this himself, he obviously knew the truth.

I too have wondered about the theory that if Lance came in early 90s clean, it could have hindered his chances but I still think it was a stretch to suggest he could actually win the Tour.

As we never tire of pointing, this is the problem with doping in the last 20 years, it so distorts the results from the natural order.

 

[python]

Ferrari is a haematologist, but no doubt he will have expertise across the spectrum of doping performance enhancement.

But recovery doping is different.

no it is not. epo increases rbc mass and thus affords a rider to perform at decreased excretion for the same let say power production. less excertion, quicker recovery. in addition, increased rbc mass results in better ability to soak acidity in the circulation thus increasing lt. so epo or any blood doping DIRECTLY affect recovery from day to day a 3 week tour.

They target the physiological systems if I am correct.

epo does target physiological systems as explained above. race recovery is a complex interaction between various systems most ARE physiological.

CNS (central nervous system)
Circulatory: Haematological Cardiac Aerobic - lungs/breathing (salbutamol)

what is your point? cns and even the immune system are important in a 3-week race.

Ferrari gets the engine prepped. But you need to service it during the Tour. Think Ferrari's expertise lies in the former. No doubt he has skill in the latter. But I think the Spanish sports docs, that have been around since Indurain, will have skill with the intra-Tour gear.

i know that ferrari is hematologist. this did not stop him from writing prescriptions for testo, hgh etc. fuentes is a gynecologist but he offering "full service" regardless.

the point is, and i agree with you on the role of recovery, that one can not really separate recovery from other enhancements because they work in synergy. for example it was observed several times that epo and hgh work in synergy. that epo needs increased iron supply. that good recruitment of muscles (CNS) requires proper acidity and prevention of calcium leakage...
it's all connected. testosterone is used for general recovery (hormonal factor) but also increased rbc production etc etc.

 

[python]

Yes, I know that EPO is used in cancer treatment, but I still don't see where the argument is? The fact the LA survived is hardly convincing evidence that his response to one element of cancer treatment, being EPO, is particularly good. So if there is in fact an argument could you spell it out for me? What part of LA's recovery from cancer suggests that his response to EPO is better than average and why?

i already told you can by my general example or not.

 

[blackcat]

no it is not. epo increases rbc mass and thus affords a rider to perform at decreased excretion for the same let say power production. less excertion, quicker recovery. in addition, increased rbc mass results in better ability to soak acidity in the circulation thus increasing lt. so epo or any blood doping DIRECTLY affect recovery from day to day a 3 week tour.


epo does target physiological systems as explained above. race recovery is a complex interaction between various systems most ARE physiological.

what is your point? cns and even the immune system are important in a 3-week race.


i know that ferrari is hematologist. this did not stop him from writing prescriptions for testo, hgh etc. fuentes is a gynecologist but he offering "full service" regardless.

the point is, and i agree with you on the role of recovery, that one can not really separate recovery from other enhancements because they work in synergy. for example it was observed several times that epo and hgh work in synergy. that epo needs increased iron supply. that good recruitment of muscles (CNS) requires proper acidity and prevention of calcium leakage...
it's all connected. testosterone is used for general recovery (hormonal factor) but also increased rbc production etc etc.

Alot of what I wrote was "assumed". The EPO and O2 is assumed. No need for you to state that. I would have to be a fricken fool to delineate it b/w recovery doping and performance enhancement doping. There is no line.

My point is, the preparation is building the engine, getting the physiological parameters correct. Then intra Tour, that is one of the most important factors, equal to the preparation.

Now, again, I appreciate that the EPO and increase hc and hemoglobin does, and aids recovery. I also know it is truly stupid, to suggest such a recovery program is not important in the training phase.

Rasmussen may have been putting out more wattage in the Dolomiti in 2007 because he did not have to pass any tests, so he could dope thru the roof. All the fast acting testo to his hearts content. Yeah?

I also think stuff like EPO in sports like football would be useless, except for the recovery aspect of having more O2. Because football, even for the more aerobic guys, they never really exhaust their O2 system to the pinnacle. And yes, they run in efforts, and I know the repeatability aspect with EPO enhancement. But even for football, the O2 recovery advantage would be marginal. But we are talking a different sport, not an aerobic sport (pure), but a hand eye sport, which requires a hybrid, strength and aerobic, but none to the maximum they could put out, and declining returns for topping up.

You were right in what you said Python, but incorrect in the assumption I was saying that the EPO part of the equation was irrelevant. Perhaps I was ambiguous. (EPO as euphemism for the O2 vector enhancement)

 

[python]

Alot of what I wrote was "assumed". The EPO and O2 is assumed. No need for you to state that. I would have to be a fricken fool to delineate it b/w recovery doping and performance enhancement doping. There is no line.

My point is, the preparation is building the engine, getting the physiological parameters correct. Then intra Tour, that is one of the most important factors, equal to the preparation.

Now, again, I appreciate that the EPO and increase hc and hemoglobin does, and aids recovery. I also know it is truly stupid, to suggest such a recovery program is not important in the training phase.

Rasmussen may have been putting out more wattage in the Dolomiti in 2007 because he did not have to pass any tests, so he could dope thru the roof. All the fast acting testo to his hearts content. Yeah?

I also think stuff like EPO in sports like football would be useless, except for the recovery aspect of having more O2. Because football, even for the more aerobic guys, they never really exhaust their O2 system to the pinnacle. And yes, they run in efforts, and I know the repeatability aspect with EPO enhancement. But even for football, the O2 recovery advantage would be marginal. But we are talking a different sport, not an aerobic sport (pure), but a hand eye sport, which requires a hybrid, strength and aerobic, but none to the maximum they could put out, and declining returns for topping up.

You were right in what you said Python, but incorrect in the assumption I was saying that the EPO part of the equation was irrelevant. Perhaps I was ambiguous. (EPO as euphemism for the O2 vector enhancement)

what you assumed black cat about epo's role in recovery was not stated. all i did is asked why to separate the two programs. i did not assume nor stated anything about you thoughts on epo's influence on recovery. i just pointed out the complexity. you can go back and review my posts. we agree that gts are about recovery and various doping programs are at play and in synergy.
a hematologist like ferrari is likely working with an unnamed endocrinologist to
better administer testo, hgh etc that would be often called hormonal doping even though epo is also a hormone. the whole area of blood doping(including epo, hbt, abt, artificial blood substitutes) is probably supported by the specialists in several medical fields. a syou said, armstrong is likely garnered the seat spot due to his unlimited resources and not the least being a good, smart student.