• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Contador & Armstrong will never be caught for EPO or blood boosting and here's why!!

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 11, 2009
791
0
0
Visit site
Ripper said:
Sadly, your hope is likely incorrect. Smedlift is likely just a few points above complete moron. He sounds like he is taking it a bit personal ... just a flaming troll, or a friend of Pharmstrong?

He just really hates cancer.
 
Jul 11, 2009
16
0
0
Visit site
To say that Contador or Armstrong must have used doping is the exact same as accusing any other professional cyclist of doping. They did not test positive nor have they admitted to doping. That's how it works in cycling, you are innocent until proven guilty. Come back when you have proof.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
dajonker said:
To say that Contador or Armstrong must have used doping is the exact same as accusing any other professional cyclist of doping. They did not test positive nor have they admitted to doping. That's how it works in cycling, you are innocent until proven guilty. Come back when you have proof.

You missed the 7 samples of Mr Armstrong that tested positive for synthetic EPO.
 

Deadlift

BANNED
Dec 26, 2009
103
0
0
Visit site
Ferminal said:
But EPO can give you the extra 5-10% which could mean the difference between 1st and 10th over three weeks.

Depends on who the rider is. 180 or so riders start a 3 week race. Hmmm, give around 160 of them EPO, they will not beat a clean Armstrong & the remaining 20 better be on top of there game in terms of looking at every aspect of athletic/cycling performance. No stone goes unturned. Case in point. When Millar was a honking doper back in the day, I remember what being drowned upto the eyeballs in EPO did for him, sweet FA. Ullrich in 97, holding off Virenque, Riis for the Tour etc...

What I'm trying to get at. EPO can't turn you into a great rider, it can't make a great rider & never will. So let riders in the future be foolish enough to dope, get banned & realize, $hit, that stuff was garbage. 160 riders. Someone tell Lemond they would never win a Tour. Get off Armstrongs jock for his "miraculous" 7 wins, start looking at the bigger picture.

Zirbel. Good one. You took a bag of crap & now your down the creek without a paddle. Was DHEA gonna turn you into a Tour Winner? Am I Michael Jackson?. Good move.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Deadlift said:
Depends on who the rider is. 180 or so riders start a 3 week race. Hmmm, give around 160 of them EPO, they will not beat a clean Armstrong & the remaining 20 better be on top of there game in terms of looking at every aspect of athletic/cycling performance. No stone goes unturned. Case in point. When Millar was a honking doper back in the day, I remember what being drowned upto the eyeballs in EPO did for him, sweet FA. Ullrich in 97, holding off Virenque, Riis for the Tour etc...

Armstrong's results from the 93 & 94 tour prove you wrong.

Ask Riis what EPO can do for you. For him it took him from fetching water bottles to winning the Tour.
 

Deadlift

BANNED
Dec 26, 2009
103
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
Armstrong's results from the 93 & 94 tour prove you wrong.

Ask Riis what EPO can do for you. For him it took him from fetching water bottles to winning the Tour.

The 1997 Tour de France. A doping Bjarne Riis (DEN) Team Telekom 26min' 34sec" down on Jan Ullrich.

Get ready... Riis's EPO success's.... This beats the hell out of training all winter, he was thinking!

1993: 5th Overall, Tour de France
1994: 14th Overall, Tour de France
1995: 3rd Overall, Tour de France
1996: 1st Overall Tour de France

Still Doping...

1997: 7th Overall, Tour de France
1998: 11th Overall, Tour de France
1999: ?????..

Well you get the idea....

EPO sure made him great...
 
Apr 9, 2009
976
0
0
Visit site
Deadlift said:
Depends on who the rider is. 180 or so riders start a 3 week race. Hmmm, give around 160 of them EPO, they will not beat a clean Armstrong & the remaining 20 better be on top of there game in terms of looking at every aspect of athletic/cycling performance. No stone goes unturned. Case in point. When Millar was a honking doper back in the day, I remember what being drowned upto the eyeballs in EPO did for him, sweet FA. Ullrich in 97, holding off Virenque, Riis for the Tour etc...

What I'm trying to get at. EPO can't turn you into a great rider, it can't make a great rider & never will. So let riders in the future be foolish enough to dope, get banned & realize, $hit, that stuff was garbage. 160 riders. Someone tell Lemond they would never win a Tour. Get off Armstrongs jock for his "miraculous" 7 wins, start looking at the bigger picture.

Zirbel. Good one. You took a bag of crap & now your down the creek without a paddle. Was DHEA gonna turn you into a Tour Winner? Am I Michael Jackson?. Good move.


Still trying to figure out your point. You've said you don't think Armstrong is clean, and that are better alternatives to EPO. Meaning? Blood transusions? Test.? HGH?

You've also said EPO doesn't make a real difference. Meaning what? It doesn't actually raise hematocrit? Or are you saying having more red blood cells doesn't actually improve performance?

Is DHEA going to change someone from a domestic pro to a Tour winner? Of course not. Can it make the difference in staying with Bissel or getting a shot at a Garmin contract? Who knows.

And why do you keep referring to jocks and sacks?
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Deadlift said:
The 1997 Tour de France. A doping Bjarne Riis (DEN) Team Telekom 26min' 34sec" down on Jan Ullrich.

Get ready... Riis's EPO success's.... This beats the hell out of training all winter, he was thinking!

1993: 5th Overall, Tour de France
1994: 14th Overall, Tour de France
1995: 3rd Overall, Tour de France
1996: 1st Overall Tour de France

Still Doping...

1997: 7th Overall, Tour de France
1998: 11th Overall, Tour de France
1999: ?????..

Well you get the idea....

EPO sure made him great...

Why did you leave out the 1989 TDF when he finished 95 or the 1991 where he finished 107? Most likely because it proved my point that Riis (and Armstrong) went from back of the pack at the Tour to winning thanks to EPO.
 

Deadlift

BANNED
Dec 26, 2009
103
0
0
Visit site
Kennf1 said:
Still trying to figure out your point. You've said you don't think Armstrong is clean, and that are better alternatives to EPO. Meaning? Blood transusions? Test.? HGH?

You've also said EPO doesn't make a real difference. Meaning what? It doesn't actually raise hematocrit? Or are you saying having more red blood cells doesn't actually improve performance?

Is DHEA going to change someone from a domestic pro to a Tour winner? Of course not. Can it make the difference in staying with Bissel or getting a shot at a Garmin contract? Who knows.

And why do you keep referring to jocks and sacks?

Your not reading my posts. (Better alternatives to EPO. Meaning?) Meaning alternatives within WADA regulation. NOT BLOOD TRANFUSIONS, NOT HGH, NOT EPO. Alternatives within WADA regulation. Alternatives used by Armstrong which can out perform whats already on the substance banned list in terms of enhancing athletic performance.

The guy with the highest concentrations of EPO in his blood, the highest red blood cell count, the highest VO2 max will not be factors in a rider getting top spot in the Tour. There not the determining factors in winning Tours. Armstrong can't win a Tour doping.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Deadlift said:
Your not reading my posts. (Better alternatives to EPO. Meaning?) Meaning alternatives within WADA regulation. NOT BLOOD TRANFUSIONS, NOT HGH, NOT EPO. Alternatives within WADA regulation. Alternatives used by Armstrong which can out perform whats already on the substance banned list in terms of enhancing athletic performance.

The guy with the highest concentrations of EPO in his blood, the highest red blood cell count, the highest VO2 max will not be factors in a rider getting top spot in the Tour. There not the determining factors in winning Tours. Armstrong can't win a Tour doping.

So - you take EPO...........then stop taking it,and become a great success, got it.

Thanks for the advice.
 
Apr 9, 2009
976
0
0
Visit site
Deadlift said:
Your not reading my posts. (Better alternatives to EPO. Meaning?) Meaning alternatives within WADA regulation. NOT BLOOD TRANFUSIONS, NOT HGH, NOT EPO. Alternatives within WADA regulation. Alternatives used by Armstrong which can out perform whats already on the substance banned list in terms of enhancing athletic performance.

The guy with the highest concentrations of EPO in his blood, the highest red blood cell count, the highest VO2 max will not be factors in a rider getting top spot in the Tour. There not the determining factors in winning Tours. Armstrong can't win a Tour doping.

Okay, so you believe Armstrong has discovered the holy grail of legal supplements that increase performance better than blood doping.

And those are?
 

Deadlift

BANNED
Dec 26, 2009
103
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
Why did you leave out the 1989 TDF when he finished 95 or the 1991 where he finished 107? Most likely because it proved my point that Riis (and Armstrong) went from back of the pack at the Tour to winning thanks to EPO.

Riis never came from back of the pack & when he did get too the front, EPO didn't keep him there.

I just cannot believe the emphasis everybody puts on EPO on these forums. Jesus. Please, get off from riding its sack. Like don't train, don't look at other alternatives, methods, techniques, principles, etc etc etc etc, don't push the envelope to the max like Armstrong did... Just take EPO, its absurd... I'm sorry, banned substances can't make you a world beater.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Deadlift said:
Riis never came from back of the pack & when he did get too the front, EPO didn't keep him there.

I just cannot believe the emphasis everybody puts on EPO on these forums. Jesus. Please, get off from riding its sack. Like don't train, don't look at other alternatives, methods, techniques, principles, etc etc etc etc, don't push the envelope to the max like Armstrong did... Just take EPO, its absurd... I'm sorry, banned substances can't make you a world beater.

Who here claimed "just EPO" (or any other illegal substance) makes you better?
 

Deadlift

BANNED
Dec 26, 2009
103
0
0
Visit site
Kennf1 said:
Nope. Still don't.

Yes you do. Consuming EPO hasn't kept him at the top. Simple as. EPO didn't make him great. EPO doesn't make you great. EPO can't make you great. The results are there, history can't change the impact EPO had on Riis's flailing results.
 
Apr 9, 2009
976
0
0
Visit site
Deadlift said:
Riis never came from back of the pack & when he did get too the front, EPO didn't keep him there.

I just cannot believe the emphasis everybody puts on EPO on these forums. Jesus. Please, get off from riding its sack. Like don't train, don't look at other alternatives, methods, techniques, principles, etc etc etc etc, don't push the envelope to the max like Armstrong did... Just take EPO, its absurd... I'm sorry, banned substances can't make you a world beater.

Actually, I believe you'll find that the emphasis, at least since about 2003, has been on transfusions, not epo, given the incresingly accurate testing for epo. Still, we see epo busts every year.

You also seem to believe that doping athletes don't train hard, which is bizarre. No pro cyclist sits on a couch all year and takes dope as a substitute for training. If anything, the doping athlete is able to carry a higher training load than a non-doped athlete (with the same physical capabilities).
 

Deadlift

BANNED
Dec 26, 2009
103
0
0
Visit site
You believe everything Riis says right?. I mean everyone believed him about his doping. So at the same time believe him when he said 'EPO wasn't all that'.... & Lets stop going on in The Clinic, that taking banned substances is the No.1 factor behind Tour victories. Its absurd people, oh sorry, the haters, place EPO as Lances holy grail to victory. Absurd.

EPO/HGH/BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS don't keep, or get you to the top of the sport.

So bloody stop going on like it does.

For crying out LOUD.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Deadlift said:
You believe everything Riis says right?. I mean everyone believed him about his doping. So at the same time believe him when he said 'EPO wasn't all that'.... & Lets stop going on in The Clinic, that taking banned substances is the No.1 factor behind Tour victories. Its absurd people, oh sorry, the haters, place EPO as Lances holy grail to victory. Absurd.

EPO/HGH/BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS don't keep, or get you to the top of the sport.

So bloody stop going on like it does.

For crying out LOUD.
No - I dont believe everything Riis says. Much of his confession was self serving.

However large parts of his doping practices was backed up by Jeff d'Hont and the Telekom enquiry.

Of course if he had a cadance like Lance - then yes, I would believe in miracles....
 
Deadlift said:
Yes you do. Consuming EPO hasn't kept him at the top. Simple as. EPO didn't make him great. EPO doesn't make you great. EPO can't make you great. The results are there, history can't change the impact EPO had on Riis's flailing results.

This is just ***. You either have no athletic experience or you are playing dumb (or both).

PED's are simply the icing on the cake for a pro athlete. Any pro athlete trains his or her *** off, eats a perfect diet, sleeps 10 hours a night, hardly ever drinks alcohol or parties, is a student of their sport and all its tactics, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.

The point is all pro athletes do all of those things AND THEN some of them take PED's on top of all this (of which EPO is one with very proven and tangible results) and they reap additional small benefits from these drugs. Since everyone at the top of a pro sport is on a very close level, the additional benefits gained from a PED such as EPO can be game-breaking.

As far as your whole "not on EPO's sack" schtick, you are extremely late to the party - you're actually behind the UCI which is quite pathetic. It is well known to all involved with the sport that EPO played a huge role and was widely used in the peloton for at least a whole decade - this is why a test was finally developed and interestingly enough riders are still getting popped positive for EPO even after the test has been around for 5+ years so why the heck are they taking that risk if it doesn't do anything as you maintain?

Now go read some books or something. I am continually amazed that people come on here (or any forum for that matter) and spout off about topics they clearly don't know jack about. It's a pretty sad aspect of the human condition - hopefully dumb asses like this poster are in the minority or we're well on the road to "Idiocracy."
 

Slayer

BANNED
Dec 29, 2009
108
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
He finished 107 out of 158. Most would say that is back of the pack.

Do you think it is fair to say he would always finished at this level though? It's one thing to say Armstrong was helped to winning the tour by doping, but to claim he would have always been at the back of the pack, just because he was for hist first ever tour, seems disingenuous. Do you really believe that?
 
Slayer said:
Do you think it is fair to say he would always finished at this level though? It's one thing to say Armstrong was helped to winning the tour by doping, but to claim he would have always been at the back of the pack, just because he was for hist first ever tour, seems disingenuous. Do you really believe that?

Way to burn that straw man that you created dude. Burn it all down bro! You da man. I like how you put words in his mouth and even wrote an entire fictitious sentence that you attributed to RR. Cute, but transparently stupid.