David Millar Velocitynation

[Mellow Velo]

Because they know virtually nothing about the sport or its history

Why limit this fact, simply to cycling?

 

[Digger]

So, here it is, the top 10.
All we want from you is the definitive who rides clean, who rides dirty, from this bunch.

Final General Classification TDF 1997
1. Jan Ullrich (Ger) TEL 100.30.35
2. Richard Virenque (Fra) FES 9.09
3. Marco Pantani (Ita) MER 14.03
4. Abraham Olano (Spa) BAN 15.55
5. Fernando Escartin (Spa) KEL 20.32
6. Francesco Casagrande (Ita) SAE 22.47
7. Bjarne Riis (Dan) TEL 26.34
8. Jose Maria Jimenez (Spa) BAN 31.17
9. Laurent Dufaux (Swi) FES 31.55
10. Roberto Conti (Ita) MER 32.26

Give it some thought, instead of your usual, off the cuff garbage.

That top ten is insane. Enough drugs there to block up customs for a month.

 

[BYOP88]

So, here it is, the top 10.
All we want from you is the definitive who rides clean, who rides dirty, from this bunch.

Final General Classification TDF 1997
1. Jan Ullrich (Ger) TEL 100.30.35
2. Richard Virenque (Fra) FES 9.09
3. Marco Pantani (Ita) MER 14.03
4. Abraham Olano (Spa) BAN 15.55
5. Fernando Escartin (Spa) KEL 20.32
6. Francesco Casagrande (Ita) SAE 22.47
7. Bjarne Riis (Dan) TEL 26.34
8. Jose Maria Jimenez (Spa) BAN 31.17
9. Laurent Dufaux (Swi) FES 31.55
10. Roberto Conti (Ita) MER 32.26

They must all be clean cos like Jan's haematocrit was only like 7 or something

 

[Ripper]

Why limit this fact, simply to cycling?

LMAO!

Well, they know how to be trolls

 

[filipo]

Colombo!!!, jeez there were so many of them Frattini, Minali, Colage, Faresin, Bortolami, Perini, Ghirotto, Ferrigato, Richard, Gianetti. All poor or average riders who had been around for ages but then suddenly started winning. The 93 Fondriest season, amazing.

I forgot Ferrigato! My favorite part of the whole Gewiss/Batik/Ferrari saga was Riso Scotti. Surely that sponsor expected more.
But oh, Maurizio! In my heaven, an in-his-prime Fondriest rides the Ardennes and Lombardy against an in-his-prime Jalabert. Throw in Gianni Bugno, Frans Maassen, and VDB as well.

But your larger point is so true -- and shows how little certain posters know about cycling history. Or really about anything to do with cycling other than Le King **** Armstrong. But what I never understood is what happened to all those guys. They all won big, then disappeared. Colombo, Bobrik, Frattini... Ugrumov had two good podiums and then nothing. Jaskula had one. Gianetti had one amazing season and then nothing. Did the drugs catch up to them -- i.e. too much too often? Or did the rest of the (otherwise more talented peloton) catch up to their drug use?

I remember reading an article about two nice boys from Polti riding in the 1994 Tour Dupont -- Andrea Peron and Oscar(?) Pelliciolli. The next year, Peron was riding on Motorla, and I remember watching him and Armstrong just crush the Dupont field on one stage. Now I wonder if that was the first link in Armstrong's Italian program. Peron's previous teams were Polti and Gatorade.

 

[Rise Of The Dead]

Well if we believe what Millar says, he wasnt on EPO for the 00 Tour.

Yeah... I'm not one wheel short of a bicycle, come on.

Every human responds differently to pharmaceuticals. This has been proven over and over in clinical trials. It is clear that some riders benefited more then others from the introduction of EPO in the Peloton.

Correct. Its the overall winners on GC who respond the best right.

You guys dont get it, EPO helped turn rubbish riders into decent ones and good riders into super riders.

WRONG!. When riders started to take EPO, history shows us they didn't start seeing success straight away nor did that success continue.

this is simple, Ullrich couldnt beat Riis in 96 because there was no limit to what level a rider could jack whilst in 97 when the UCI introduced a 50% limit.

Your not understanding me. Doesn't matter what the limit was, it doesn't get away from the fact Riis recorded a 56.3% hematocrit Vs A Clean Ullrich 42% in the '97 Tour, finishing 30 minutes down on a clean winner???... It doesn't get away from the fact a clean Ullrich produced the most powerful climb in history up the Arcalis @ 475 watts. AT WHAT HEMATOCRIT???. 42%

Riis's Tour record...

1993: 5th
1994: 14th
1995: 3rd
1996: 1st

Still swimming in EPO & losing to clean riders...

Are we seeing a continuation of success of EPO honkers over clean riders?.

1997: 7th
1998: 11th

History doesn't state so.

I dont think anybody on here would claim that it was 100% down to EPO but it was a major factor.

Thankyou... If Lance did take EPO in '99, he can't win the Tour. Its one factor. You can't be great in one area, you need to be great in every area.

 

[filipo]

Your not understanding me. Doesn't matter what the limit was, it doesn't get away from the fact Riis recorded a 56.3% hematocrit Vs A Clean Ullrich 42% in the '97 Tour, finishing 30 minutes down on a clean winner???... It doesn't get away from the fact a clean Ullrich produced the most powerful climb in history up the Arcalis @ 475 watts. AT WHAT HEMATOCRIT???. 42%

Sorry, but where the F are you getting your claims from? If Riis recorded a Hct over 50% in the 1997 Tour, he would have been benched for two weeks -- so I doubt that was an official reading. Likewise, where are Ullrich numbers from? Is that 42% before or after a saline IV? Lastly, where'd you get that 475w figure from? Was Ullrich using a power meter back in '97? Always ahead of the curve, that guy...

I know your only goal is to mess with people (that's OK, it's good to have a purpose in life, even if it is only to huff Lancepole), but one glaring omission in your convenient history up there: Riis admitted to doping for the 96 Tour. The one he won. The one where Ullrich -- magically clean whilst rising on a systematically doped team -- came second. So I guess EPO worked in that case, eh?

 

[pmcg76]

Yeah... I'm not one wheel short of a bicycle, come on.



Correct. Its the overall winners on GC who respond the best right.



WRONG!. When riders started to take EPO, history shows us they didn't start seeing success straight away nor did that success continue.



Your not understanding me. Doesn't matter what the limit was, it doesn't get away from the fact Riis recorded a 56.3% hematocrit Vs A Clean Ullrich 42% in the '97 Tour, finishing 30 minutes down on a clean winner???... It doesn't get away from the fact a clean Ullrich produced the most powerful climb in history up the Arcalis @ 475 watts. AT WHAT HEMATOCRIT???. 42%

Riis's Tour record...

1993: 5th
1994: 14th
1995: 3rd
1996: 1st

Still swimming in EPO & losing to clean riders...

Are we seeing a continuation of success of EPO honkers over clean riders?.

1997: 7th
1998: 11th

History doesn't state so.



Thankyou... If Lance did take EPO in '99, he can't win the Tour. Its one factor. You can't be great in one area, you need to be great in every area.

So, so wrong on many things. Firstly, the UCI introduced a limit on haematocrit level at the start of the 97 and if any rider had a level above 50%, they were forced to stop riding for 2 weeks. Fact.

So how could Riis then have a figure of 56%, that figure was garnered from a file containing the haematocrit levels of Gewiss riders whom Riis roder for in 95 The only time I have ever heard Ullrichs haematocrit level mentioned was when the story circualted that his team-mate Kevin Livingston told another rider that Ullrich always kept his level at 42%. Livingston spent one season at Telekom in 2002 so how would he know what it was in 97. By 02 no rider could have a limit above 50% without authorisation by UCI so only normal Ullrich had a lvel of 42%. If you can direct me to where you find those figures for 97 I will then concur with you but right now I can show where there figures stem from, you have to do the same.

Go and look at the Top 10 from 97 and tell us who were the clean riders. If you cannot understand the difference between different levels of riders doping then you are totally clueless. How many guys that I listed did you know, most were pros since mid 80s but only started performing from 92-96 when EPO was spreading in the peloton, if its not EPO, then please present a logical alternative.

So in your world, Millar admitted he doped for the most significant victories/performances of his career but hes lying about the times he didnt perform because he was on EPO then also. Wow, I guess that makes a lot of sense.

You really dont have a clue. Did you even follow cycling in the 90s so how would you know anything about that period. God I am slow at typing, I am just repeating Filippo I see.

 

[Ferminal]

Ullrich was clean in 1997?

 

[pmcg76]

The other thing is that when EPO first arrived on the scene, not everybody knew how to use it properly which is why it is believed some riders died in the late 80s/90s. If they didnt know how to administer it and use it properly, then they might not alwasy have gained from it. That is also why every team got a doctor on board.

 

[Rise Of The Dead]

Riis admitted to doping for the 96 Tour. The one he won. The one where Ullrich -- magically clean whilst rising on a systematically doped team -- came second. So I guess EPO worked in that case, eh?

Riis admitted to doping in 2007. Riis had been doping WAY before his '96 Tour win. Are we seeing a continuation of success of Riis over clean riders?. Was EPO the holy grail to his '96 win?. No! Can't be. EPO didn't see a continuation of success.

1997: 7th
1998: 11th

History states so.

Did Riis see success when taking EPO from the get go. No. Results state, history states.

 

[pmcg76]

Ullrich was clean in 1997?

What, you didnt know He had a haematocrit level of 42% in 97, thus was clean, ROD has the inside scoop, he is gonna tell us how he got this figure from the Telekom team.

 

[Rise Of The Dead]

Riis didn't from the start, nor at the end of his career see a success in results from taking EPO.

 

[pmcg76]

Riis admitted to doping in 2007. Riis had been doping WAY before his '96 Tour win. Are we seeing a continuation of success of Riis over clean riders?. Was EPO the holy grail to his '96 win?. No! Can't be. EPO didn't see a continuation of success.

1997: 7th
1998: 11th

History states so.

Did Riis see success when taking EPO from the get go. No. Results state, history states.

Who are all these clean riders ypu speak of? Direct questions deserve direct answers.

 

[Rise Of The Dead]

Guys, & we are all going on the basis that taking EPO can actually produce side effects???... Effects which have a negative effect on athletic performance. We understand that don't we.

 

[filipo]

Riis admitted to doping in 2007. Riis had been doping WAY before his '96 Tour win. Are we seeing a continuation of success of Riis over clean riders?. Was EPO the holy grail to his '96 win?. No! Can't be. EPO didn't see a continuation of success.

1997: 7th
1998: 11th

History states so.

Did Riis see success when taking EPO from the get go. No. Results state, history states.

Again, I know your only goal in life is to blowStrong, but really -- logic is a useful tool sometimes. If Riis started taking EPO "way before" his '96 win, that means he made a progession toward his 1996 win. I.e., that win was the culmination of years' preparation. If he started doping in, say '93, and EPO actually harms a rider's performance -- as you keep arguing -- then he never would have won in '96. He was 5th in 95, momo -- how do you explain that?

 

[pmcg76]

Riis didn't from the start, nor at the end of his career see a success in results from taking EPO.

What year did Riis turn pro and who were his first 4 teams without googling the answer?

 

[filipo]

What year did Riis turn pro and who were his first 4 teams without googling the answer?

Funny thing is, I can't answer that without googling -- because Riis was a nobody before Ariostea, the first team I remember him on.

 

[pmcg76]

1986, Roland, Lucas, Toshiba, Super-U/Castorama, he won a stage at the Giro in 89, his first significant result. When he won the Tour in 96, the article on Riis in Cycle Sport magazine was called The fall and rise of Bjarne Riis, says it all really.

 

[filipo]

Riis didn't from the start, nor at the end of his career see a success in results from taking EPO.

You're actually right for once. He saw "a success in results from taking EPO" right in the middle -- the 1996 Tour de France.

 

[Rise Of The Dead]

The other thing is that when EPO first arrived on the scene, not everybody knew how to use it properly which is why it is believed some riders died in the late 80s/90s .

One of the negative side effects of EPO WAS DEATH. Jesus, I never knew of a dead rider winning the Tour. That is worse than the other negative effects it has on athletic performance & to a riders potential of winning the Tour.

 

[filipo]

1986, Roland, Lucas, Toshiba, Super-U/Castorama, he won a stage at the Giro in 89, his first significant result. When he won the Tour in 96, the article on Riis in Cycle Sport magazine was called The fall and rise of Bjarne Riis, says it all really.

My God, he was a pro forever ago! I guess he took all that dope to keep up with Lemond, eh?

 

[filipo]

One of the negative side effects of EPO WAS DEATH. Jesus, I never knew of a dead rider winning the Tour. That is worse than the other negative effects it has on athletic performance & to a riders potential of winning the Tour.

I hear you can get EPO for cheap on the Internet. Can I forward you some links?

 

[Ripper]

...

You are a tool.

 

[Rise Of The Dead]

You're actually right for once. He saw "a success in results from taking EPO" right in the middle -- the 1996 Tour de France.

No! "(EPO's the holy grail to winning the Tour, the be all, end all)". It has to have a rider seeing success from the get go & the success sees a continuation.