• 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!

David Millar Velocitynation

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Slayer

BANNED
Dec 29, 2009
108
0
0
Visit site
Rise Of The Dead said:
It's "suspected" that it increases oxygen capability & VO2 max which "if" is the case, enhances only one aspect of cycling performance.

It's purpose is to increase red blood cells which carry oxygen in people with anemia and cancer, so I don't think there is any doubt about it. It's been researched and used on patients around the world.

Concentrating on (one) limiting factor to cycling performance can't possibly make you a Tour contender or eventual winner, EPO or no EPO.

The thing with Armstrong is, EPO is probably not his drug of choice anymore anyway, and probably hasn't been for the best part of this decade, so you are right to highlight that some magical response to one particular drug will not win you a tour. However, by claiming EPO is "suspected" to work, you allow some here to paint you as a bit of a troll, and worst still, lump others in with you. That's not too smart.
 
Rise Of The Dead said:
It's "suspected" that it increases oxygen capability & VO2 max which "if" is the case, enhances only one aspect of cycling performance. Concentrating on (one) limiting factor to cycling performance can't possibly make you a Tour contender or eventual winner, EPO or no EPO.

Evidence please;

2000 TDF: 62nd Place
2001 TDF: Abandoned after Stage 10
2002 TDF: 68th Place
2003 TDF: 55th Place



Not sure. Two legs, two arms, a head n' all & didn't I once hear Millar having a higher recorded VO2 than Lance, which going on that assumption, Millar has the genetic advantage. Maybe he was thinking EPO beat the hell out of training all winter, dedicating his life to cycling/training/working hard, looking at new methods, prinicipals, pioneering. All Armstrongesque...

Please list these factors, you said there were 8 before, I'd like to know them.
 

Slayer

BANNED
Dec 29, 2009
108
0
0
Visit site
Ferminal said:
But Armstrong won the 1999 TdF on EPO, so either he wasn't a GC rider and took EPO and won, or he always was a GC rider and EPO didn't help him win, he just took it for fun.

If Armstrong tested positive in one of his later victories, you could claim that he was a proven GC rider before hand. It's perhaps a bit difficult to reason that way considering he tested positive in only his second top-level GT performance.

Do I detect a change in your argument? Now you claim EPO CAN turn someone into a GC rider. A little apology to Polish might be in order, no?

I disagree with you. It may not be convenient to those that say EPO can't turn you into a GC rider, that Armstrong may have tested positive for EPO in his first tour win, but it's tabloid unthinking logic to come to that conclusion. It's fairly obvious that LA completely changed his training, his commitment and his mental approach - even his riding technique changed. EPO may have been one part of that, but it's highly probable that he always had the talent within him.

But I agree that it's not good PR from LA's point of view. It allows people who have sniffed around a few forums to think they are really clever by "working out" Armstrong would never have been a top contender without dope, when in reality we know he probably would have been. Finishing 12th at the Giro last year, without being at top form, after four years out, aged 37 and with blood numbers that declined, shows this. You just have to do a little bit of thinking and look past the trendy 'in the know' answers that are easily arrived at.
 
Slayer said:
It may not be convenient to those that say EPO can't turn you into a GC rider, that Armstrong may have tested positive for EPO in his first tour win, but it's tabloid unthinking logic to come to that conclusion. It's fairly obvious that LA completely changed his training, EPO was a part of that

Arbiter!

Thx
 
Slayer said:
Do I detect a change in your argument? Now you claim EPO CAN turn someone into a GC rider. A little apology to Polish might be in order, no?

I disagree with you. It may not be convenient to those that say EPO can't turn you into a GC rider, that Armstrong may have tested positive for EPO in his first tour win, but it's tabloid unthinking logic to come to that conclusion. It's fairly obvious that LA completely changed his training, his commitment and his mental approach - even his riding technique changed. EPO may have been one part of that, but it's highly probable that he always had the talent within him.

But I agree that it's not good PR from LA's point of view. It allows people who have sniffed around a few forums to think they are really clever by "working out" Armstrong would never have been a top contender without dope, when in reality we know he probably would have been. Finishing 12th at the Giro last year, without being at top form, after four years out, aged 37 and with blood numbers that declined, shows this. You just have to do a little bit of thinking and look past the trendy 'in the know' answers that are easily arrived at.

My argument hasn't changed at all, what I said was completely clear I wouldn't even call it sarcasm, re-read my posts tbh :p
 

Slayer

BANNED
Dec 29, 2009
108
0
0
Visit site
Ferminal said:
My argument hasn't changed at all, what I said was completely clear I wouldn't even call it sarcasm, re-read my posts tbh :p

It's not clear at all. You criticised Polish for saying David Millar wouldn't win the TdF for all the EPO in the world. You implied that this was a silly thing to say because Millar was not a GC rider. Now you appear to be supporting those that say EPO can turn riders who would never be up there into GT contenders. You seem to want it both ways.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Slayer said:
No, the super forum investigator RaceRadio has confirmed Polish is Arbiter. And we know he never gets anything wrong. :rolleyes:

Yet another lie by Abiter/BanProCycling/MaxPower/Sprocket1/Earthtribe/Slayer.
You need to take your medication.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
Slayer said:
It's the claim of many people here that Armstrong is not a GC rider. By highlighting that EPO could not turn Millar into a GC contender I presume Polish was addressing those extremists.

Exactly Slayer, that was my point.

ferminal said:
But Armstrong won the 1999 TdF on EPO, so either he wasn't a GC rider and took EPO and won, or he always was a GC rider and EPO didn't help him win, he just took it for fun.

I would argue Lance was a GC Champion who would have won in 1999 even without the benefits of EPO. Zulle and Escartin were crushed big time. 7 + 10 minutes back.

Similiar argument for 00-05 too.

Slayer...again said:
The thing with Armstrong is, EPO is probably not his drug of choice anymore anyway, and probably hasn't been for the best part of this decade, so you are right to highlight that some magical response to one particular drug will not win you a tour.

Agree...EPO is passé...Lance's 1999 EPOing is about as relevent as Clinton's 1999 Bimbo Eruptions or Yeltsin's 1999 drunken rants. It might be time to move on and start to focus on the Y2K issues yikes

Return of the Dead said:
Maybe he (Millar) was thinking EPO beat the hell out of training all winter, dedicating his life to cycling/training/working hard, looking at new methods, prinicipals, pioneering. All Armstrongesque...

That is what I was thinking too. Hey, maybe I'm your sock puppet! Did you have a Canadian Bacon and Pineapple Pizza for dinner tonite?
 
Slayer said:
It's not clear at all. You criticised Polish for saying David Millar wouldn't win the TdF for all the EPO in the world. You implied that this was a silly thing to say because Millar was not a GC rider. Now you appear to be supporting those that say EPO can turn riders who would never be up there into GT contenders. You seem to want it both ways.

No I'm not at all.

Wow.

Are you trying to tell me that Ullrich was never a potential GC rider? Valverde? Vino? Armstrong had more potential than Millar in general.

Please show me one of my posts where I've said that EPO turns nobodies into top notch GC riders, stop twisting my words you half wit. Maybe you just have terrible comprehension and interpretation skills. It's quite clear that I said the Armstrong situation is "uncertain".

But Armstrong won the 1999 TdF on EPO, so either he wasn't a GC rider and took EPO and won, or he always was a GC rider and EPO didn't help him win, he just took it for fun.

Obviously the reality is somewhere between those two extremes. Let's not forget the magic 8 factors, plus Festina. Which one do you think? Just took EPO for fun? Or do you agree that blood doping can add the extra 5-10% which might just be the difference between 4th and 1st?
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Polish said:
Exactly Slayer, that was my point.



I would argue Lance was a GC Champion who would have won in 1999 even without the benefits of EPO. Zulle and Escartin were crushed big time. 7 + 10 minutes back.

Similiar argument for 00-05 too.



Agree...EPO is passé...Lance's 1999 EPOing is about as relevent as Clinton's 1999 Bimbo Eruptions or Yeltsin's 1999 drunken rants. It might be time to move on and start to focus on the Y2K issues yikes



That is what I was thinking too. Hey, maybe I'm your sock puppet! Did you have a Canadian Bacon and Pineapple Pizza for dinner tonite?

If it was not doping that turned Armstrong (and Riis) from a back of the pack rider who got dropped on long climbs and could not TT to a 7 time winner then what was it?

High cadence and the genius of Chris Charmichel?
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
Ferminal said:
But Armstrong won the 1999 TdF on EPO, so either he wasn't a GC rider and took EPO and won, or he always was a GC rider and EPO didn't help him win, he just took it for fun.

and then:
Ferminal said:
Obviously the reality is somewhere between those two extremes

Well, it is not "obvious" to some. I think we can all agree there are some posters who DO argue that Lance "wasn't a GC rider and took EPO and won". To think otherwise is like believing a Myth or Unicorns.
 
Race Radio said:
If it was not doping that turned Armstrong (and Riis) from a back of the pack rider who got dropped on long climbs and could not TT to a 7 time winner then what was it?

High cadence and the genius of Chris Charmichel?

Also weight loss, and the incredible inner resolve that comes from staring death in the face and not blinking. Also the fact that apparently for a seven year period there Lance was the only tour contender who trained and prerode any of the climbs in that years race. That and the cadence and Chris.
 
Polish said:
and then:


Well, it is not "obvious" to some. I think we can all agree there are some posters who DO argue that Lance "wasn't a GC rider and took EPO and won". To think otherwise is like believing a Myth or Unicorns.

Just like those who think he only took EPO because it was cool, it's likely they are wrong. A rest-day refill wasn't the only thing helping Wiggins transform. EPO might have got Lance first, but I don't subscribe to BigBoat etc who claim that he doesn't finish the race without it.

Wiggins -

2006 TdF: 124
2007 TdF: -
2008 Giro: 134
2009 Giro: 71
2009 TdF: 4
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Slayer said:
.......... It allows people who have sniffed around a few forums to think they are really clever by "working out" Armstrong would never have been a top contender without dope, when in reality we know he probably would have been. Finishing 12th at the Giro last year, without being at top form, after four years out, aged 37 and with blood numbers that declined, shows this. You just have to do a little bit of thinking and look past the trendy 'in the know' answers that are easily arrived at.

So - Arbiter, just for clarity - you are saying a "clean" Lance finished 12th....
Hate to break it to you - there are no prizes for finishing 12th....no Yellow Jersies, Pink Jersies, massive contracts. Michaelob wont care if you drink their product, Nike dont return your calls.

So - thank you for highlighting exactly where a rider of LA's ability would finish - probably outside the top 10...... (Oh, and for what its worth BPC - I doubt he was clean at the Giro either).
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
Armstrong did not "crush big time" Zulle lost 6:03 in a crash on the third stage and lost the GC by 7:37

Yes, Lance won by a large margin in 1999 due to superior tactical positioning on a greasy cobbled road. No, EPO did not give better traction or sturdier wheels. Postal switched over to Mavic wheels after that brutal day. Lance peed in a cup.
 
Polish said:
Yes, Lance won by a large margin in 1999 due to superior tactical positioning on a greasy cobbled road. No, EPO did not give better traction or sturdier wheels. Postal switched over to Mavic wheels after that brutal day. Lance peed in a cup.

It wasn't a cobbled road it was an under sea level road. Lance gained 1:34 over the rest of the tour, in part due to EPO. No one is arguing that Lance made up the most of his advantage due to doping, he was lucky in that his closest opposition lost time in a crash.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
Its only 2 days old Sproket01.

Actually good Doctor, our old adversary BPC kind of has you here. There was no year zero in the transition from BC to AD, thus all decades begin in a year ending with a 1 (2001, 1981, 1991, etc) and end in a year with a 0 that can also be divisible evenly by 10 and leave a whole number (2010, 1990, 2000 corresponding end of decades for the previous years mentioned above). It is January 3rd 2010 and not a new decade. It is the last year in the first decade of the second millennium AD. Hint, don't listen to the historically ignorant buffoons who pester society via tv and newspapers. They haven't a clue and spread their ignorance, which is often left unchecked. Hence BPC reeled you in, unknowingly of course, but nonetheless he reeled both yourself and Hugh Januss in.

You're probably thinking does this mean we celebrated the millennium a year early? Yes you did if you celebrated it in the transition between 1999 and 2000. Don't worry, in Australia, despite the fact we are taught the above in school, our media still found it in their infinite foolishness to copy the US these last few weeks. You are not alone America.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Wow....

Dave Millar thread turns into Lance Armstrong thread..

Whoever would have thought something like that could happen... :D
 
dimspace said:
Wow....

Dave Millar thread turns into Lance Armstrong thread..

Whoever would have thought something like that could happen... :D

Well they are good buddies Dim, I mean its like dropping Lance in a doped actor thread just because he is buddies with Matthew McConaughey.