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.
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
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?
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.
Ferminal said:But EPO can give you the extra 5-10% which could mean the difference between 1st and 10th over three weeks.
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...
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.
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.
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...
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kennf1 said:Nope. Still don't.
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.
Deadlift said:Riis never came from back of the pack .
No - I dont believe everything Riis says. Much of his confession was self serving.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.
Race Radio said:He finished 107 out of 158. Most would say that is back of the pack.
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.
Race Radio said:He finished 107 out of 158. Most would say that is back of the pack.
....lucky for him he joined an Italian team with an Italian Doctor to find them for him.Deadlift said:I would say he was still young & still finding his legs...
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?