Does Armstrong have a monopoly on the best PEDs?

[Ninety5rpm]

This was just posted in another thread:

It's clear [Armstrong] has decided on a doping program over actual riding to get him on form for the Tour.

How could that possibly be true?

Do you who agree with this statement believe Armstrong is the only one on a doping program, or that his doping program is so superior to that used by everyone else?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

This was just posted in another thread:



How could that possibly be true?

Do you who agree with this statement believe Armstrong is the only one on a doping program, or that his doping program is so superior to that used by everyone else?

Its not as simple as 'the best PED's' - which blood booster is better, EPO, CERA, homologous blood doping. The key appears to be in the fine tuning, knowing when and what gets the best performance for the individual user.

This is why its good to have a hematologist as your trainer - and LA had Dr. Ferrari, and LA made him exclusive- that is where he had an advantage.

Regardless of the programme he still needs to put in the miles.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Its not as simple as 'the best PED's' - which blood booster is better, EPO, CERA, homologous blood doping. The key appears to be in the fine tuning, knowing when and what gets the best performance for the individual user.

This is why its good to have a hematologist as your trainer - and LA had Dr. Ferrari, and LA made him exclusive- that is where he had an advantage.

Regardless of the programme he still needs to put in the miles.

Even if LA had an exclusive with the best in the past, surely Ferrari didn't retire as well. Does anyone think Armstrong has an exclusive with Ferrari now? Does anyone know whether Ferrari is still the best? Say there are other doctors out there who have gotten really good, perhaps even better than Ferrari... would you expect us to have heard of them?

Glad you agree he still has to do the miles... putting it mildly.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Even if LA had an exclusive with the best in the past, surely Ferrari didn't retire as well. Does anyone think Armstrong has an exclusive with Ferrari now? Does anyone know whether Ferrari is still the best? Say there are other doctors out there who have gotten really good, perhaps even better than Ferrari... would you expect us to have heard of them?

Glad you agree he still has to do the miles... putting it mildly.

Ferrari didn't retire - he had Vino as a client until his crash in the 2007 Tour when someone elses blood got in his system.

Is LA working with Ferrari now, well they still 'talk'..... andFerrari has saidhe will retire next year

As for other Doctors out there who have improved.... read my first post, it is why I wrote what I wrote. I would assume at this point there are a number of 'Doctors' who specialize for various teams or individual riders.

 

[ChrisE]

Ferrari didn't retire - he had Vino as a client until his crash in the 2007 Tour when someone elses blood got in his system.

Is LA working with Ferrari now, well they still 'talk'..... andFerrari has saidhe will retire next year

As for other Doctors out there who have improved.... read my first post, it is why I wrote what I wrote. I would assume at this point there are a number of 'Doctors' who specialize for various teams or individual riders.

Then why wasn't Vino winning the 07 tour? Why wasn't anybody else he worked with after LA retired win a GT?

What a coincidence....the only reason LA won was because of Ferrari but once LA retired the other docs improved. Thus, Ferrari stopped being the best in August 2005. But, he may be working with LA again so he probably is better than everybody again. His words are worth a 20% increase for sure.

You guys can convince yourself of anything.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Then why wasn't Vino winning the 07 tour? Why wasn't anybody else he worked with after LA retired win a GT?

What a coincidence....the only reason LA won was because of Ferrari but once LA retired the other docs improved. Thus, Ferrari stopped being the best in August 2005. But, he may be working with LA again so he probably is better than everybody again. His words are worth a 20% increase for sure.

You guys can convince yourself of anything.

Where did I say that Ferrari stopped being the best in August 2005???

In fact where did I say Ferrari stopped being the best!

Vino had crashed out of contention before he was kicked out of the Tour.

 

[ChrisE]

Where did I say that Ferrari stopped being the best in August 2005???

In fact where did I say Ferrari stopped being the best!

Vino had crashed out of contention before he was kicked out of the Tour.

My mistake; you said his retirement caused the other docs to "improve". Kinda like Flecha etal in PR the other day who decided to race for second place while Cancellara was in the race.

Is there a Consumer Reports ranking on these doping doctors? Does Forbes do a ranking on ROI of these docs?

 

[Kender]

Then why wasn't Vino winning the 07 tour?

he was still in contention until he crashed. it affected him for a few days. he'd lost alot of blood and had to top up i guess

 

[ChrisE]

he was still in contention until he crashed. it affected him for a few days. he'd lost alot of blood and had to top up i guess

Ah yes, I remember now. That was when he crashed into the blood donation van?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

My mistake; you said his retirement caused the other docs to "improve". Kinda like Flecha etal in PR the other day who decided to race for second place while Cancellara was in the race.

Is there a Consumer Reports ranking on these doping doctors? Does Forbes do a ranking on ROI of these docs?

Not sure about Forbes - but you could have a look at the GC from the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005.

 

[Race Radio]

Testing has increased dramatically since 2005. WADA, the Bio Passport, increased OOC testing. All have made having the expert guidance of a doctor like Ferrari more important then ever.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Here is a list for the 2005 Tour.

1. Lance Armstrong (Dr. Ferrari)
2 Ivan Basso (Fuentes)
3 Jan Ullrich (Fuentes)
4 Francisco Mancebo (Fuentes)
5 Alexander Vinokourov (T-Mobile run by Lothar Heinrich and
Andreas Schmid)

 

[Kender]

Ah yes, I remember now. That was when he crashed into the blood donation van?

maybe he should have used that excuse

 

[Inner Peace]

Something i've noted:

In the Cancellara thread the majority of people would conclude:

- super talented rider so if he is doping then so be it, they all are, so it's justified and we all enjoyed the performances of Spartacus!

In any Armstrong thread, the majority of people would conclude:

- reasonably talented rider, but he got the best doctor, despite them all doping, which is not justified, and we didn't like his 99-05 performances for it

not trying to troll, but it's quite a reasonable conclusion i think...

Not trying to be sanctimonious either, but as a reasonably objective person and having read a lot of older threads (becoz they are the more interesting ones) this is an observation I have made.

I tend to accept doping is part and parcel of the sport so i tend not to judge a rider too harshly for alleged doping but at the same time, if I believe a rider is cleaner than others then I would probably support them more than the suspected doped rider.

Love the Clinic discussion so please carry on as usual, but as any forum member knows, it's good to express your thoughts.

As to the initial question. I don't think that Armstrong would have a monopoly on the best PEDs, but certainly if a rider pays a doctor to work exclusively with them the question does come down to who has the best doctor? but that is a highly subjective answer because it is near impossible to say that Armstrong's Ferrari is better than Ullrich's Fuentes. Winning doesn't mean you have the best program. It may mean you have a good program, or an exclusive program, but there are so many other factors in a bike race that suggesting that doping, and doping alone, is the factor in winning is simply incorrect. (i don't think anyone said that, just makin a point)

It's just too subjective to say one has the best doctor because as others have said (in the Cancellara thread too) that despite doping; training counts, initial talent helps, good responder to training and/or drugs, good team counts, good diet counts, mental ability counts etc etc..

So despite Armstrong/Cancellara having a good or better or more exclusive 'program' they are still hard working, talented, mentally strong riders which correlates with their wins, and doping, I believe is secondary to that.

 

[Jonathan]

So despite Armstrong/Cancellara having a good or better or more exclusive 'program' they are still hard working, talented, mentally strong riders which correlates with their wins, and doping, I believe is secondary to that.

Still it would be nice if those hard working, talented, mentally strong riders wouldn't perpetuate the lie that 'miracles can happen' and refrain from bullying people who have the decency to tell the truth.

Oh, but Cancellara never did that, did he?

 

[JPM London]

In the Cancellara thread the majority of people would conclude:

- super talented rider so if he is doping then so be it, they all are, so it's justified and we all enjoyed the performances of Spartacus!

In any Armstrong thread, the majority of people would conclude:

- reasonably talented rider, but he got the best doctor, despite them all doping, which is not justified, and we didn't like his 99-05 performances for it

I can follow you on that and, if true, part of the explanation could be that FC has not yet won PR and Flanders etc 7 years in a row and so not been nearly as dominant as LA has. Let's see where we all stand in another 5 or 6 years

Also maybe most people tend to be realists re the past and optimists (OK, you can call it naive if you feel like it) re the present and future. And so it's not difficult to maintain LA wasn't clean, but boy how we're hoping Spartacus is!

 

[Inner Peace]

Still it would be nice if those hard working, talented, mentally strong riders wouldn't perpetuate the lie that 'miracles can happen' and refrain from bullying people who have the decency to tell the truth.

Oh, but Cancellara never did that, did he?

Oh I agree, lying and bullying is not cool. But that's the sport ain't it? Potentially, all the dopers are lying, but yeh the bullying is a bit rich...

I reckon both those guys put it a lot of work when they win, so that was the point I was trying to make. Don't like dopers really, but sadly, i'm learning to accept it. So i used to get so angry at them for it, but now I just kinda let it go.

So again, i'm not trying to bad-mouth the guys that question the myth on this forum, becoz that's the best thing about this place, but it was interesting to see the justification for FC by posters despite declaring he was among the dirty.

I think i'm rambling and going off track, so i'll log off now!.. sorry haha.

 

[Inner Peace]

I can follow you on that and, if true, part of the explanation could be that FC has not yet won PR and Flanders etc 7 years in a row and so not been nearly as dominant as LA has. Let's see where we all stand in another 5 or 6 years

Also maybe most people tend to be realists re the past and optimists (OK, you can call it naive if you feel like it) re the present and future. And so it's not difficult to maintain LA wasn't clean, but boy how we're hoping Spartacus is!

that's true, becoz at the end of the day, i'd say we all want a 100% clean sport so we call out the alleged dopers even if at times it is a bit harsh.

So yeah when a doper clearly and easily wins a race every year the fans want something different. But do they want a clean winner or just a different, younger less arrogant doper to win? Prob clean, but you know there are a lot of people rooting for Contador over Armstrong this year, despite declaring they are both dirty... so interesting stuff eh

naturally, i'd prefer a clean winner, and i'm probably naive enough to suggest that a clean guy can top 10 so i'm more likely to root for them and as you said "boy how {i'm} hoping" the cleaner guy wins

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

Something i've noted:

In the Cancellara thread the majority of people would conclude:

- super talented rider so if he is doping then so be it, they all are, so it's justified and we all enjoyed the performances of Spartacus!

In any Armstrong thread, the majority of people would conclude:

- reasonably talented rider, but he got the best doctor, despite them all doping, which is not justified, and we didn't like his 99-05 performances for it

not trying to troll, but it's quite a reasonable conclusion i think...

Not trying to be sanctimonious either, but as a reasonably objective person and having read a lot of older threads (becoz they are the more interesting ones) this is an observation I have made.

I tend to accept doping is part and parcel of the sport so i tend not to judge a rider too harshly for alleged doping but at the same time, if I believe a rider is cleaner than others then I would probably support them more than the suspected doped rider.

Love the Clinic discussion so please carry on as usual, but as any forum member knows, it's good to express your thoughts.

As to the initial question. I don't think that Armstrong would have a monopoly on the best PEDs, but certainly if a rider pays a doctor to work exclusively with them the question does come down to who has the best doctor? but that is a highly subjective answer because it is near impossible to say that Armstrong's Ferrari is better than Ullrich's Fuentes. Winning doesn't mean you have the best program. It may mean you have a good program, or an exclusive program, but there are so many other factors in a bike race that suggesting that doping, and doping alone, is the factor in winning is simply incorrect. (i don't think anyone said that, just makin a point)

It's just too subjective to say one has the best doctor because as others have said (in the Cancellara thread too) that despite doping; training counts, initial talent helps, good responder to training and/or drugs, good team counts, good diet counts, mental ability counts etc etc..

So despite Armstrong/Cancellara having a good or better or more exclusive 'program' they are still hard working, talented, mentally strong riders which correlates with their wins, and doping, I believe is secondary to that.

An important point you're missing is that it isn't just about what program, but how intensive the program is.

That depends on several things:

1 - How much the rider is willing to risk regarding his health (Mr. 60% anyone?), and how much trust he places in his medical advisor

2 - how much the rider trusts his doctor not to make a mistake and get him caught

But also:

3 - How "protected" the rider feels by the corrupt system. ie. being the winner of the "tour of redemption" and a hero/messiah to the ultra sensitive cancer community and a golden key to the cash cow of the English speaking untouched market, very rich, friends in high places is a trump card over being an introvert Eastern European etc

If you gave GC contenders a score out of 10 for each of these points Lance is a perfect 10 on each.

We know from the Andreu/vaughters IM that Livingston said Ulrich never went above 42% hct. was that on health grounds maybe? didn't like falling asleep at night wondering ih he'd wake up the next day?

 

[JPM London]

..., but you know there are a lot of people rooting for Contador over Armstrong this year, despite declaring they are both dirty... so interesting stuff eh

Personally I'm just hoping for a close race this year no matter who wins. If LA gets his form up I think he can contend even better than last year. Schleck the younger and Contador are obvisously both capable if in form and Schleck the elder will be so this year as well if his knee stays fine. Wiggins was not a one-hit wonder in my book either. Cadel could actually be a good bet as well it seems; he looks a changed man after getting that rainbow jersey last year...

Yes, I'm well aware that some of them might be doping, although I think most of them actually are clean. But never the less I think it could be the closest race in many years with more realistic contenders than in many years. Whether doped or not, it looks like a close race and that makes for exiting couch potato stuff for the rest of us...

 

[buckwheat]

Even if LA had an exclusive with the best in the past, surely Ferrari didn't retire as well. Does anyone think Armstrong has an exclusive with Ferrari now? Does anyone know whether Ferrari is still the best? Say there are other doctors out there who have gotten really good, perhaps even better than Ferrari... would you expect us to have heard of them?

Glad you agree he still has to do the miles... putting it mildly.

Wow, I'm glad you're world isn't completely rocked!

It's good that you have the approval of other forumites that Pharmstrong isn't a complete sociopath.

In addition to his blood changes, microdosing, juicing, and life extension (Hgh) he has to mix in some training.

Damn, guy probably can't sit still for more than 5 minutes with all the crap circulating in his system.

I guess the tea bagging of Pharmstrong is justified because he has to get on the bike and go to work like every one else in the world has to, if they want to pay their bills.

Idol worship is very important to some of us.

 

[Race Radio]

Something i've noted:

In the Cancellara thread the majority of people would conclude:

- super talented rider so if he is doping then so be it, they all are, so it's justified and we all enjoyed the performances of Spartacus!

In any Armstrong thread, the majority of people would conclude:

- reasonably talented rider, but he got the best doctor, despite them all doping, which is not justified, and we didn't like his 99-05 performances for it

Not exactly.

Cancellara was a huge talent as a kid. An super talented TT and one Day rider who became....an amazing TT and one day rider.

Armstrong was also a huge talent as a kid. Big potential as a one day classics rider....but he could not climb or TT.

Suddenly, after working with the sports most notorious doping doctor, Armstrong is not only able to climb but becomes one of the greatest climbers in history. Instead losing 6 minutes in TT's he is suddenly putting minutes on the best TT riders in the sport. After dropping out of the Tour multiple times he suddenly wins 7 straight.

Armstrong is one of many riders who showed extreme improvement from the introduction of Oxygen delivery doping.

 

[3rdWheel]

Personally I'm just hoping for a close race this year no matter who wins. If LA gets his form up I think he can contend even better than last year. Schleck the younger and Contador are obvisously both capable if in form and Schleck the elder will be so this year as well if his knee stays fine. Wiggins was not a one-hit wonder in my book either. Cadel could actually be a good bet as well it seems; he looks a changed man after getting that rainbow jersey last year...

Yes, I'm well aware that some of them might be doping, although I think most of them actually are clean. But never the less I think it could be the closest race in many years with more realistic contenders than in many years. Whether doped or not, it looks like a close race and that makes for exiting couch potato stuff for the rest of us...

I think LA would still be hated by some even if we were all convinced he didn't/doesn't dope.

 

[VeloCity]

I think LA would still be hated by some even if we were all convinced he didn't/doesn't dope.

And how exactly would that be different for any rider? Or any professional athlete for that matter?

Part of the reason that a lot of people don't like LA is because of his personality, ie that he's a bit of an ***, which has nothing to do with doping. It's the same in any sport: as a hockey fan, I can tell you that a lot of people simply hated Wayne Gretzky, because they thought he was arrogant. A lot of people hated Eric Lindros, because he was a bit of an ***. A lot of people don't like Sidney Crosby, cause they think he's a crybaby.

But as it is, the main reason that so many cycling fans don't like LA is because he was almost certainly doping, because he got away with it, because he's continuously lied about it, because of the way he treated Simoni and Bassons etc, and because of the hypocrisy of his holier-than-thou attitude about doping.

 

[Berzin]

But as it is, the main reason that so many cycling fans don't like LA is because he was almost certainly doping, because he got away with it, because he's continuously lied about it, because of the way he treated Simoni and Bassons etc, and because of the hypocrisy of his holier-than-thou attitude about doping.

You forgot one thing-the graceless, tactless manner in which he tried to internally destroy a team that he walked onto and how he boorishly attempted to maneuver and bully his way to the front when his legs clearly could not compete for the position.

And all in the name of cancer awareness.