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

[Deadlift]

Because everyone else was on the stuff too!

Take a walk.

 

[Kennf1]

Riis is 30 minutes down on Ullrich in the '97 Tour. Riis is honked upto the eyeballs on EPO...

30 MINUTES DOWN.

Hmmmm, must be good stuff all that blood transfusion, EPO/HGH stuff.

I know what Lance was THINKING. Yeah, I want some of that banned stuff seeing what effect it had on Riis's results when honked to the eyeballs. Maybe it could be a better idea to actually reverse the idea, stay clean & stay ahead of EPO'ers as it could put me 30 minutes down too.

"Maybe it could be a better idea to actually reverse the idea."

I'm going to write that one down. And I think in 1997, Lance was wondering whether he was going to live, not what Riis was on.

 

[poupou]

Some visual references... for dummies

Lance on TDF at major stages (ITT and mountain stages):
Tour de France 1993
1th stage ITT 6.8km
1. Indurain 8'12
81 Armstrong +47"

9th stage ITT 59km
1. Indurain 1h12'50
27 Armstrong +6'04"

10th moutain stage 203km 3 cols Villards -Serre Chevalier
86 Armstrong +21'42"

11th moutain stage 179 km Serre-Chevalier -> ISOLA 2000
97 Armstrong +28'47"

No departure or not finished stage 12.
-------
TDF 1994

LILLE / Euralille, 7.2 km ITT
1. Chris Boardman (Gbr) en 7'49" (Moy : 55.266 km/h)
18. Armstrong à 39"

PERIGUEUX-BERGERAC, 64 km ITT
1. Miguel Indurain en 1h15'58" (Moy : 50.548 km/h)
13. Armstrong à 6'23"

Lourdes/Hautacam (HC-1560) -> Leblanc

1. Luc Leblanc en 6h58'04" (Moy : 37.816 km/h)
64. Armstrong à 7'03"

LOURDES-LUZ ARDIDEN, 204.5 km
1. Richard Virenque en 6h08'32" (Moy : 33.294 km/h)
55. Armstrong à 20'09"

No departure or not finished the 16th stage (Ventoux)

----------
TDF 1995

SAINT BRIEUC, 7.3 km ITT
1. Jacky Durand en 9'00" (Moy : 48.666 km/h)
45. Armstrong +33"

HUY (Bel)-SERAING (Bel), 54 km ITT
1. Miguel Indurain en 1h04'16" (Moy : 50.414 km/h)
19. Armstrong à 5'09"

LE GRAND BORNAND-LA PLAGNE, 160 km

1. Alex Zülle (Sui) en 4h41'18" (Moy : 34.127 km/h)
40. Armstrong +17'57"

AIME LA PLAGNE-L'ALPE D'HUEZ, 162.5 km
1. Marco Pantani en 5h13'14" (Moy : 31.126 km/h)
56. Armstrong à 18'44"

ST ORENS DE GAMEVILLE-GUZET NEIGE, 164 km
1. Marco Pantani en 4h29'08" (Moy : 36.561 km/h)
117. Armstrong à 28'05"

ST GIRONS-CAUTERETS/CRETES DU LYS, 206 km
1. Richard Virenque en 6h20'48" (Moy : 32.457 km/h)
64. Armstrong à 32'54"

LAC DE VASSIVIERE, 46.5 km ITT
1. Miguel Indurain en 57'34" (Moy : 48.465 km/h)
43. Armstrong à 6'24"

CG FINAL :
36. Lance Armstrong (Usa) à 1h28'06"

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Was there a two speed peloton in their early tours?

The early Tours Sproket01? Like 1903 and stuff?

You mean the Lance years? Well why did a clean rider like Hampsten finish 8th in 1993 while Lance already was an hour down when he abandoned after the 2nd stage in the Alps.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Take a walk.

....does EPO have any benefit for walking?

 

[Kennf1]

Riis is 30 minutes down on Ullrich in the '97 Tour. Riis is honked upto the eyeballs on EPO...

30 MINUTES DOWN.

Hmmmm, must be good stuff all that blood transfusion, EPO/HGH stuff.

I know what Lance was THINKING. Yeah, I want some of that banned stuff seeing what effect it had on Riis's results when honked to the eyeballs. Maybe it could be a better idea to actually reverse the idea, stay clean & stay ahead of EPO'ers as it could put me 30 minutes down too.

I know what Riis was probably thinking in 1997: "Damn the UCI and their 50%hematocrit limit (introduced in April 1997)".

 

[Deadlift]

Lets not compare a prime ITT specialist Indurain to a young & upcoming Armstrong. There is more to increasing performance increasages over the years than doping. Get with it.

I'm going to go ahead with another thread stating I have won my argument that doping doesn't work & doesn't bring success.

No good talking slimeballs, the lot of you... Take a long walk.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Lets not compare a prime ITT specialist Indurain to a young & upcoming Armstrong. There is more to increasing performance increasages over the years than doping. Get with it.

I'm going to go ahead with another thread stating I have won my argument that doping doesn't work & doesn't bring success.

No good talking slimeballs, the lot of you...

Thanks Pat.

 

[Slayer]

The early Tours Sproket01? Like 1903 and stuff?

The two speed, EPO, peloton of the 1990s was fairly legendary. I'm surprised you haven't heard about it. That LA was winning stages in the Tour despite this was hugely impressive.

You mean the Lance years? Well why did a clean rider like Hampsten finish 8th in 1993 while Lance already was an hour down when he abandoned after the 2nd stage in the Alps.

I don't know for sure. I can speculate that it wouldn't have been worth putting the effort in during the Alps if he knew he was already going to pullout. He done his job by blowing the peloton and winning a stage on the flat, whilst Hampsten was pacing himself for the overall. LeMond had to abandon in one of the early 1990s tours because he couldn't keep up with the peloton. Does this mean Hampsten was a better tour rider than LeMond?

Some riders also learn later than others the skill of climbing. Wiggins this year shows how a change in priorities can produce results. Not everybody is the same. Taking one stage here and there doesn't really explain a great deal.

 

[Kennf1]

There is more to increasing performance increasages over the years than doping.

The key is to take the idea and actually reverse the idea then increase the performance increasages over the years.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Thanks Pat.

Pat McRoin?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The two speed, EPO, peloton of the 1990s was fairly legendary. I'm surprised you haven't heard about it. That LA was winning stages in the Tour despite this was hugely impressive.

Yes - I had heard about it. In 1998 and 1999!

I don't know for sure. I can speculate ...

....thats all you ever do BPC.

 

[Slayer]

Yes - I had heard about it. In 1998 and 1999!

No it was going more significant before that point. My post earlier explains..
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=128832&postcount=98

....thats all you ever do BPC.

That's precisely what you are doing throughout this thread, of course. It's what we're all doing, isn't it? It's speculative theories based on circumstantial evidence. Unlike you, however, I admitted I can't know for sure why Lance got dropped on the Alps in 1993. All I can say is I think the likelihood of trying, and succeeding, in winning a stage in the early part of the tour will have taken a lot out of him compared to riders saving themselves, and the EPO riders will have shown their hands in the mountains. You, however, know for a fact this is not the case. I don't know where your hard evidence is for that. Aren't you just speculating?

 

[poupou]

Slayer,

Riders progressively adopted EPO, first for racing then for trainning...

Just have a look how it affected average power on climb (see my previous chart)

 

[BikeCentric]

The two speed, EPO, peloton of the 1990s was fairly legendary. I'm surprised you haven't heard about it. That LA was winning stages in the Tour despite this was hugely impressive.



I don't know for sure. I can speculate that it wouldn't have been worth putting the effort in during the Alps if he knew he was already going to pullout. He done his job by blowing the peloton and winning a stage on the flat, whilst Hampsten was pacing himself for the overall. LeMond had to abandon in one of the early 1990s tours because he couldn't keep up with the peloton. Does this mean Hampsten was a better tour rider than LeMond?

Some riders also learn later than others the skill of climbing. Wiggins this year shows how a change in priorities can produce results. Not everybody is the same. Taking one stage here and there doesn't really explain a great deal.

Rex Huntard - still trolling after all these months. LOSER.

 

[BikeCentric]

Honestly we are plumbing new depths of idiocy here. This is now the "EPO doesn't even work thread" whereas in reality even the inept and corrupt UCI acknowledges that EPO is a PED with noticeable effects that has been used as a PED in cycling and is still in use.

Lock the thread and ban the trolls please.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No it was going more significant before that point. My post earlier explains..

Your earlier post is a theory.

You are speculating - I am not.

Lance lost 21 minutes in his first stage in the Alp's - then lost 28 minutes on the very next. EPO abuse was not rampant in 1993 - as Hampstens 8th place shows.

 

[Slayer]

Your earlier post is a theory.

You are speculating - I am not.

Lance lost 21 minutes in his first stage in the Alp's - then lost 28 minutes on the very next. EPO abuse was not rampant in 1993 - as Hampstens 8th place shows.

You're not speculating (I trust) about the time difference on this one stage, just as I am not speculating that Armstrong won stage eight. Those are facts. But your conclusions are, of course, pure assertion and theory. I have already addressed this speculation with my own theories so I don't know what more to add.

I'm with Greg LeMond on this one.

 

[pedaling squares]

It's like deja vu all over again!

One point being raised by Armstrong supporters is that EPO cannot make you a great rider. And I will grant them that. I could ride at 60% and watch Kenny Van Hummel drop me like an anvil when the rode tilts up. But a very good rider, like Lance who I believe was a very talented rider with or without PED's, can become a great stage race rider with the support of EPO, and now transfusions. I think we've seen time and time again how Armstrong decided to get on a program that included EPO, and made sudden and dramatic improvements in the ITT and climbing. It's pretty hard to argue that EPO was not beneficial when a man who struggled with hills takes a long break from competition due a life-threatening illness and returns to ride away from a supercharged peloton. Sestriere anyone?

So is Lance a great rider? Well, he dominated tours when his competition were also doping, so no matter how good his teammates were or how many cream pies were in Jan's belly, yes he was a great rider. A very talented rider who responded well to PED's and used smart team tactics to win the TDF over and over again. And could he have done this without EPO? No way. No way could he have won nearly every ITT and still dominated the mountains without EPO and blood transfusions. You know it, I know it, and Lance knows it. And the sooner we all agree that this man had some serious talent as a one-day racer, and took some serious drugs to maximize his abilities as a stage racer, the sooner we can all get on to other topics within the peloton.

 

[red_flanders]

I have already addressed this speculation with my own theories so I don't know what more to add.

Well, Dr. Maserati's theories and conclusions are supported by tremendous factual evidence and innumerable testimonies. Your theories are backed by...well nothing as far as I've ever been able to ascertain. Unless you count number of posts and bans as evidence.

All theories are not equal, as this thread so well proves.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You're not speculating (I trust) about the time difference on this one stage, just as I am not speculating that Armstrong won stage eight. Those are facts. But your conclusions are, of course, pure assertion and theory. I have already addressed this speculation with my own theories so I don't know what more to add.

I'm with Greg LeMond on this one.

Im with Phil Anderson on this one - Phil rode alongside LA on those 2 opening stages in the Alps. He said Lance couldnt climb or TT, two things you need to win a Tour.

So what did Greg say when he heard Lance lost almost 50 minutes in the opening Alpine stages in 1993?

 

[53 x 11]

It's like deja vu all over again!

One point being raised by Armstrong supporters is that EPO cannot make you a great rider. And I will grant them that. I could ride at 60% and watch Kenny Van Hummel drop me like an anvil when the rode tilts up. But a very good rider, like Lance who I believe was a very talented rider with or without PED's, can become a great stage race rider with the support of EPO, and now transfusions. I think we've seen time and time again how Armstrong decided to get on a program that included EPO, and made sudden and dramatic improvements in the ITT and climbing. It's pretty hard to argue that EPO was not beneficial when a man who struggled with hills takes a long break from competition due a life-threatening illness and returns to ride away from a supercharged peloton. Sestriere anyone?

So is Lance a great rider? Well, he dominated tours when his competition were also doping, so no matter how good his teammates were or how many cream pies were in Jan's belly, yes he was a great rider. A very talented rider who responded well to PED's and used smart team tactics to win the TDF over and over again. And could he have done this without EPO? No way. No way could he have won nearly every ITT and still dominated the mountains without EPO and blood transfusions. You know it, I know it, and Lance knows it. And the sooner we all agree that this man had some serious talent as a one-day racer, and took some serious drugs to maximize his abilities as a stage racer, the sooner we can all get on to other topics within the peloton.

+ One hundred billion.

It's over.

 

[Slayer]

Well, Dr. Maserati's theories and conclusions are supported by tremendous factual evidence and innumerable testimonies. Your theories are backed by...well nothing as far as I've ever been able to ascertain.

You've picked the wrong issue to say that on. You'll have to be specific. What evidence does Dr Maserai have that there was no two-speed peloton in the early 1990s, and that it only started in 1998? What evidence does the Dr have that Armstrong did not blow himself out trying to win a stage on the flatter stages - which he did - and simply road with the grupetto on the mountains while the EPO guys, and others who had paced themselves, like Hampsten, then showed their hand? There is no evidence at all for anything he's said. He even had to use trickery at the start of our exchange by asking me why Armstrong did not beat Hampsten in the GC, knowing that it was preplanned for Armstrong to pullout anyway.

He's point is extremely thin to the point of silliness. He knows that cycling is a lot more complicated than reducing it to this. Look at how LeMond went from winning tours to not even being able to keep up with the peloton during the early 90s. Look at how Wiggins did not learn how to climb until his late 20s, or how Evans completely imploded this year. Anyone who understands the sport knows that riders often have different goals.

No, I think a fair minded person would look at my theories put against Dr Maserati's, in this thread, and side with mine. Remember how I said it's doubtful EPO is used anymore by the likes of Armstrong, yet he is still right up there.

 

[53 x 11]

^^^^^^ Sigh

 

[Slayer]

Im with Phil Anderson on this one - Phil rode alongside LA on those 2 opening stages in the Alps. He said Lance couldnt climb or TT, two things you need to win a Tour.

I'm sure anyone who road with Cadel Evans or Menchov at ths year's tour said the same. I wouldn't take some little comment by someone out of its logical context. Unless you're in the GC the mountains and TTs no count for much, especially in the two speed peloton of the early 90s.

So what did Greg say when he heard Lance lost almost 50 minutes in the opening Alpine stages in 1993?

Greg LeMond agrees with me that there was a two speed peloton before 1998. He suffered terribly for it. In cycling you don't always just fall back to the exact amount of difference that the drug is makin. You try harder to stay with them and then go even further behind. Then people like you come along and say they're ***.