Donkeys to racehorces. The effect of PEDs on cycling performance

Page 6 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
patterson_hood said:
The problem is getting participants that are relevant and willing to take part. Such studies take a long time, in this case 3 months, and athletes obviously can't compete for a period after this. No professional athlete at the top of their career, or even anywhere but right at the tail end of it, is likely to take part as it would have a massive effect on their career.
More accurately, the problem is actually getting access to the data. Conconi et al have been using elite athletes as guinea pigs for decades now, so the truth is that data are out there, just not in the public domain. That's why people are willing to pay a very high premium for that knowledge and expertise.
 
Oct 4, 2011
905
0
0
_frost said:
Doesn't change it much, but...

5% improvement in sustainable power (in top level) would mean a bit over 2 minutes in an hour long climb of 7% grade. The same could be achieved by reducing about 4kg of weight.
(assumptions 70kg rider, with 6.8kg bike, CdA 0.3, crr 0.004, power 450W or about 6.4W/Kg as a starting point)
So 4kg weight loss over the hour would equate to 5% gain = 2mins
Add epo again at 5% at those figures another 2 mins(rough without more calculation)

So for the 2mins you get naturally you add the same time benefit over the climb unnaturally by those figures. Shows the benefits of it with those figures if they equate.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
...oh my....looks like I'm about to jump into a $hitstorm so shields up everybody this may end up being messy....

..I guess I should preface this by saying I'm not a fan of LA ( nor of GL for who mark their battle lines by such makers ) but I like to say a few things about how Tour TT's and the donkey analogy applies or doesn't apply to LA...

..now I was never a pro but I did for over two decades and unfortunately one of the things I was ok at were TT's so I know a wee bit about the discipline....

...now the one thing I know is that first you have to at the very least be able to generate speed to get times...and some can do it and most can't...prologues are a pretty good approximation of that ability...so find below a list of LA's pre-cancer Tour Prologue results...

1993:

1. Miguel Indurain en 8'12" (Moy : 49.756 km/h)
2. Alex Zülle Ã* 8"
73. Djamolidine Abdoujaparov Ã* 45"
80. Bo Hamburger Ã* 47"
81. Lance Armstrong, s.t.

1994:

1. Chris Boardman (Gbr) en 7'49" (Moy : 55.266 km/h)
2. Miguel Indurain Ã* 15"
18. Lance Armstrong Ã* 39"
19. Abraham Olano, s.t.

1995:

1. Jacky Durand en 9'00" (Moy : 48.666 km/h)
7. Frankie Andreu Ã* 5"
35. Miguel Indurain Ã* 31"
38. Vjatcheslav Ekimov Ã* 32"
45. Lance Armstrong Ã* 33"

1996:

1. Alex Zülle en 10'53" (Moy : 51.822 km/h)
2. Chris Boardman Ã* 2"
6. Bjarne Riis Ã* 11"
7. Miguel Indurain Ã* 12"
11. Christophe Moreau Ã* 24"
12. Lance Armstrong, s.t.


...you will note that aren't really stellar but he does find himself in pretty good company with some of his times...so the bottom line is that the boy has some speed...

...the other thing about doing good TT's is the ability to maintain that speed....especially over longer distances....so here are LA's pre-cancer Tour TT results....


Stage 9 - 59 km ITT 1993
1. Miguel Indurain en 1h12'50"
2. Bugno Ã* 2'11"
3. Breukink Ã* 2'22"
4. Rominger Ã* 2'42"
5. Zulle Ã* 3'18"
6. Bruyneel Ã* 3'50"
7. Jaskula Ã* 4'00"
8. Alcala Ã* 4'05"
9. Louviot Ã* 4'28"
10. Roche Ã* 4'30"
27. Armstrong Ã* 6'04"

Stage 9 - 64 km ITT 1994
1. Miguel Indurain (Spa) 1:15.58
2. Tony Rominger (Zwi) + 2.00
3. Armand de las Cuevas(Fra) + 4.22
4. Thierry Marie (Fra) + 4.45
5. Chris Boardman (GB) + 5.27
6. Bjarne Riis (Den) + 5.34
7. Thomas Davy (Fra) st
8. Abraham Olano (Spa) + 5.45
9. Arturis Kasputis (Lit) + 6.01
10. Pjotr Oegroemov (Let) + 6.04
11. Gianluca Bortolami (Ita) + 6.12
12. Nico Emonds (Bel) + 6.16
13. Lance Armstrong (VS) + 6.23

Stage 8 - 54 kms ITT 1995 1. Miguel Indurain (Spa) 1:04.16'
19. Lance Armstrong (VS) + 5.09'

Stage 19, 46.5km time trial Auphelle--Auphelle 1995

43. Lance Armstrong (USA) + 6:24.

1996
No Time Trial info for 1996 - Armstrong abandoned on first mountain stage Croix de la Serra (2-1049) -> Van Bon

....not stellar but again he is within spitting distance from some good company....but these results can mitigated by the motivations that defined the context of the individual races....maybe team orders intervened....or maybe it just wasn't worth winning those particular battles....especially if stage hunting was high on the menu...

...but oddly enough there is one TT in the pre-cancer period where everything was on the line and that may give us a better idea of what LA was capable...and that race was the TT at Atlanta Olympics and the LA took 6th place ( and do keep in mind this is after he was unable to finish the Tour and just before the cancer diagnosis came down...)

...so where does that leave us?....well at the very least it does show the the usual black and white story presented may not quite be so simple...

...thank you for your time...and hope this helped if only a bit...

Cheers

blutto
 
blutto said:
...oh my....looks like I'm about to jump into a $hitstorm so shields up everybody this may end up being messy....

..I guess I should preface this by saying I'm not a fan of LA ( nor of GL for who mark their battle lines by such makers ) but I like to say a few things about how Tour TT's and the donkey analogy applies or doesn't apply to LA...

..now I was never a pro but I did for over two decades and unfortunately one of the things I was ok at were TT's so I know a wee bit about the discipline....

...now the one thing I know is that first you have to at the very least be able to generate speed to get times...and some can do it and most can't...prologues are a pretty good approximation of that ability...so find below a list of LA's pre-cancer Tour Prologue results...

1993:

1. Miguel Indurain en 8'12" (Moy : 49.756 km/h)
2. Alex Zülle Ã* 8"
73. Djamolidine Abdoujaparov Ã* 45"
80. Bo Hamburger Ã* 47"
81. Lance Armstrong, s.t.

1994:

1. Chris Boardman (Gbr) en 7'49" (Moy : 55.266 km/h)
2. Miguel Indurain Ã* 15"
18. Lance Armstrong Ã* 39"
19. Abraham Olano, s.t.

1995:

1. Jacky Durand en 9'00" (Moy : 48.666 km/h)
7. Frankie Andreu Ã* 5"
35. Miguel Indurain Ã* 31"
38. Vjatcheslav Ekimov Ã* 32"
45. Lance Armstrong Ã* 33"

1996:

1. Alex Zülle en 10'53" (Moy : 51.822 km/h)
2. Chris Boardman Ã* 2"
6. Bjarne Riis Ã* 11"
7. Miguel Indurain Ã* 12"
11. Christophe Moreau Ã* 24"
12. Lance Armstrong, s.t.


...you will note that aren't really stellar but he does find himself in pretty good company with some of his times...so the bottom line is that the boy has some speed...

...the other thing about doing good TT's is the ability to maintain that speed....especially over longer distances....so here are LA's pre-cancer Tour TT results....


Stage 9 - 59 km ITT 1993
1. Miguel Indurain en 1h12'50"
2. Bugno Ã* 2'11"
3. Breukink Ã* 2'22"
4. Rominger Ã* 2'42"
5. Zulle Ã* 3'18"
6. Bruyneel Ã* 3'50"
7. Jaskula Ã* 4'00"
8. Alcala Ã* 4'05"
9. Louviot Ã* 4'28"
10. Roche Ã* 4'30"
27. Armstrong Ã* 6'04"

Stage 9 - 64 km ITT 1994
1. Miguel Indurain (Spa) 1:15.58
2. Tony Rominger (Zwi) + 2.00
3. Armand de las Cuevas(Fra) + 4.22
4. Thierry Marie (Fra) + 4.45
5. Chris Boardman (GB) + 5.27
6. Bjarne Riis (Den) + 5.34
7. Thomas Davy (Fra) st
8. Abraham Olano (Spa) + 5.45
9. Arturis Kasputis (Lit) + 6.01
10. Pjotr Oegroemov (Let) + 6.04
11. Gianluca Bortolami (Ita) + 6.12
12. Nico Emonds (Bel) + 6.16
13. Lance Armstrong (VS) + 6.23

Stage 8 - 54 kms ITT 1995 1. Miguel Indurain (Spa) 1:04.16'
19. Lance Armstrong (VS) + 5.09'

Stage 19, 46.5km time trial Auphelle--Auphelle 1995

43. Lance Armstrong (USA) + 6:24.

1996
No Time Trial info for 1996 - Armstrong abandoned on first mountain stage Croix de la Serra (2-1049) -> Van Bon

....not stellar but again he is within spitting distance from some good company....but these results can mitigated by the motivations that defined the context of the individual races....maybe team orders intervened....or maybe it just wasn't worth winning those particlar battles....

...but oddly enough there is one TT in the pre-cancer period where everything was on the line and that may give us a better idea of what LA was capable...and that race was the TT at Atlanta Olympics and the LA took 6th place ( and do keep in mind this is after he was unable to finish the Tour and just before the cancer diagnosis came down...)

...so where does that leave us?....well at the very least it does show the the usual black and white story presented may not quite be so simple...

...thank you for your time...and hope this helped if only a bit...

Cheers

blutto
Though you do realize that on both the short and long distances, Lance is getting crushed by the winner. I mean around 30 seconds in prologue is an eternity and so is circa 6 (!) minutes in the long events.

PS: Then he comes back and on 50 k courses he's riding faster than Indurain did! And winning prologues! Now that is incredible. Ferrari fixed it.
 
Oct 4, 2011
905
0
0
rhubroma said:
Though you do realize that on both the short and long distances, Lance is getting crushed by the winner. I mean around 30 seconds in prologue is an eternity and so is circa 6 (!) minutes in the long events.

PS: Then he comes back and on 50 k courses he's riding faster than Indurain did! And winning prologues! Now that is incredible. Ferrari fixed it.
The solution is usually so easy it stares you in the face. Here is a case of just that. Arguments rage and different science is brought into it and Armstrong loyalists point to stuff like his heart and physiology and training blah blah blah.
All utter nonsense. Him being one in ten million etc It really is just a simple answer and there for all to see. He cheated.

He admits working with Ferrari for crying out loud. Combine just that and his time trialing and you could come up with the answer...now add 7 grand tours. It doesnt take a genius to figure it out.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
rhubroma said:
Though you do realize that on both the short and long distances, Lance is getting crushed by the winner. I mean around 30 seconds in prologue is an eternity and so is circa 6 (!) minutes in the long events.

PS: Then he comes back and on 50 k courses he's riding faster than Indurain did! And winning prologues! Now that is incredible. Ferrari fixed it.
...a couple of things...first there is doing a TT well and doing it like the whole race depends on it...and believe me the latter condition can produce a much better time....and do remember this is a long race and being smart is dosing your efforts, as in, not fighting battles you can't or don't need to win...and second I wanted to mention some of the folks he was close to in the results column...folks who were prologue specialists and whose success was tied directly to success in a prologue...surely you are not trying to say that Ekimov and Olano were donkeys in a prologue setting...or Boardman in a TT...

Cheers

blutto
 
Jul 19, 2009
949
0
0
And a quick look at Lance Armstrong 's TDF Mountain results

Tour de France 1993
1st mountain stage 86 Armstrong +21'42
2nd mountain stage 97 Armstrong +28'47

TDF 1994
1st mountain stage 64. Armstrong à 7'03
2nd mountain stage 55. Armstrong à 20'09

TDF 1995
1st mountain stage: 40. Armstrong +17'57
2nd mountain stage: 56. Armstrong +18'44
3rd mountain stage: 117. Armstrong +28'05
4th mountain stage: 64. Armstrong +32'54

To link with power on last climb evolution with EPO:
 
Jun 28, 2009
64
0
0
There is this pattern of tall heavier riders with TT potential (Indurain, Riis, Ullrich) both losing weight and presumably doping to become TDF winners.

Pantani is a notable exception, and the trend is not as clear in the rest of the top-10, or even other major tours. With the exception of Merckx few would have imagined such tall cyclists could win modern tours. I would imagine it is not just individual variability in the response to EPO but also some body types are in a better position to take advantage of the improved oxygen carrying ability.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Zigster said:
There is this pattern of tall heavier riders with TT potential (Indurain, Riis, Ullrich) both losing weight and presumably doping to become TDF winners.

Pantani is a notable exception, and the trend is not as clear in the rest of the top-10, or even other major tours. With the exception of Merckx few would have imagined such tall cyclists could win modern tours. I would imagine it is not just individual variability in the response to EPO but also some body types are in a better position to take advantage of the improved oxygen carrying ability.
...gee I never realized that Gimondi, Janssen,Ocana,Moser were all short...I always assumed they were tall...

Cheers

blutto
 
blutto said:
...a couple of things...first there is doing a TT well and doing it like the whole race depends on it...and believe me the latter condition can produce a much better time....and do remember this is a long race and being smart is dosing your efforts, as in, not fighting battles you can't or don't need to win...and second I wanted to mention some of the folks he was close to in the results column...folks who were prologue specialists and whose success was tied directly to success in a prologue...surely you are not trying to say that Ekimov and Olano were donkeys in a prologue setting...or Boardman in a TT...

Cheers

blutto
The hardest battles are fought by the leading contenders in the key stages. Thus at the last TT those who didn't expend as much energy have a better chance of doing well in the last TT, when the leaders are tired and because it boils down to who has more reserves.

Pre-cancer Lance didn't demonstrate a better performance in individual TT at the end of the Tour, which, as a non-contender, one would have expected that to be the case, because more "rested". He gave us no inkling, therefore, then, of his future awesomeness. Hence PEDs made up the difference. Otherwise how can we explain it?
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
rhubroma said:
The hardest battles are fought by the leading contenders in the key stages. Thus at the last TT those who didn't expend as much energy have a better chance of doing well in the last TT, when the leaders are tired and because it boils down to who has more reserves.

Pre-cancer Lance didn't demonstrate a better performance in individual TT at the end of the Tour, which, as a non-contender, one would have expected that to be the case, because more "rested". He gave us no inkling, therefore, then, of his future awesomeness. Hence PEDs made up the difference. Otherwise how can we explain it?
...ok...so please explain away his Atlanta performance...and remember his cancer was pretty well established by then...and it was the "last day" for a pretty impressive list of starters...

Cheers

blutto
 
May 14, 2010
5,306
2
0
poupou said:
If I robbed a bank is it correct because I could have earn that monnay by work?

There is no reason to consider if Lance or any dopers deserve their cheated wins.
Let me suggest with all due respect that you try following the conversation. Or perhaps a reading comprehension course would be in order.
 
Jul 19, 2009
1,064
0
0
rhubroma said:
Ok, I will directly respond to your post.

In challenging a "concept that any average pro-level....." you are making a rather large assumption that I don't believe was ever put out here, at least not by the serious posters on this forum. You thus address a moot point, because most understand that doping alone does not make a Tour champion out of someone, however the actual change in the performance of LA is quite well known.
Oh come on. I've been lurking around these forums for 3yrs. I've seen the general idea thrown about many times. Anyway this is also a moot point, because as soon as I brought the idea up, I got hammered immediately as if I was a Lance fanboy "perpetuating the myth" which clearly indicates the sentiment is alive and well. chewbaccD obviously went back and found my posts from a couple of years ago in which I strongly argued that LA must have taken PEDs because I said something like "he wasn't special". I meant that he wasn't that special that he could win 7x clean. I argued that he must have doped.

Regarding, the actual change in results for LA, yes of course, it is a matter of public record, but the relative contribution to that change from PEDs is completely unknown. I've never said that PEDs don't make a big difference to performance, I'm simply disputing the magnitude of that change and pointing out that there is in fact an upper limit, and based on the studies on EPO and what we know about elite athlete performance, I don't believe that upper limit is as high as what others seem to think it is.

Everyone has a right to an opinion. We can disagree, but there is no need for trolling or personal insults. Good to see the thread got back on topic :)
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
Maxiton said:
Let me suggest with all due respect that you try following the conversation. Or perhaps a reading comprehension course would be in order.
To be fair poopoo has come a far way with his English since he first started posting.

I do enjoy his discovery that all riders go all out on all mountain stages in a GT, regardless of ambition or team strategy. :cool:
 
Please refrain from discussing other posters unless you have something pleasant to say about them. Digs, barbs, "jokes", etc. can and will all be construed as insults and result in sanctions.

So easy to leave all that nonsense out. You have some time before I can ban people to get it cleaned up, but the clinic will become civil, with everyone on board or not. If you think I'm talking to you, I probably am. Shoes fitting and all that. Thanks all!
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
good post, turgid prose, but spot on, like the 131313 you quoted. This line stands out the image he produced of himself as the super clean cancer survivor that dominated the hardest bike race in the world longer than anyone before, the type of rider he was before he hooked up with Ferrari et al and the gargantuan profits
It was Stapleton's 101 Sports Marketing, and carving out that Cancer niche, in wider society, in the biggest marketplace in teh world. Stuff cycling. Lance was nicely repositioned in the Cancer market. Vested interests jumping on board, and have their marques to protect.

Basically, an Edward Bernays play. Gotta hand it to Lance and Stapleton for creating the script. Lance the actor. Stapleton the bard.

rhubroma said:
I agree with this. Armstrong didn't pay, as you say, all that money to Ferrari for nothing. And I recall an article in Tutto Bici after Riis won that Tour entitled something like "How Chemicals have Transformed Cycling," which basically outlined the ways in which the author believed the Dane used massive amounts of PEDs to win his Tour.

The idea of from "donkey to race horse" is not derived from the English language, because in cycling lingo it comes from Italian and French. At any rate, in Italy it was said back in the 80's and 90's that doping can't transform a "donkey into a race horse," in the sense that you have to have a decent engine to work with in the first place.

Having said that, the sophistication and quality curve of doping from the early 90's till today has surged dramatically, for which I don't believe someone like Riis would have won a Tour in the pre-EPO era, nor Armstrong certainly his 7 before the likes of medic cum businessman Ferrari entered the sport. This is the point I think that is critical here and this is why their era has obscured and mystified the whole GC order, since we can't believe what we saw with our own eyes. Krebs insistence, therefore, on the statistical data, without any knowledge whatsoever of what guys like Riis and Armstrong actually did off the bike (hopefully the USADA will help clarify this) to become champions, means that he has no basis for drawing the conclusions he puts forth: which seems to suggest that their doping regimes made relatively little Impact on their achievements, that it was more a combination of physical ability and determination that produced the stellar results, given that everybody was doing it, which means that the playing field was more or less level.

My point has always been, no offence, that this is a load of BS and I wonder if he is being deliberately specious or involuntarily deceptive.

I had previously outlined why I think the market forces, the expertise of certain medics and the persona of Lance, combined in a unique synthesis that galvanized their individual properties and released their potential to produce a formidable and unique cocktail - with even the possibility of cutting edge pharmaceuticals that only he had privileged access to, which was then injected into Armstrong (and none other) that gave him the decisive edge to be able to do what he did. Before his era, such would not have been possible, and thus he would not have been the champion he became. Well much of that came down to sheer money and the power over the cycling market he came to occupy. Given the image he produced of himself as the super clean cancer survivor that dominated the hardest bike race in the world longer than anyone before, the type of rider he was before he hooked up with Ferrari et al and the gargantuan profits he banked: Lance is the greatest sport fraud of all time.

I got no comment on what I previously wrote, but I stand by my arguments.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
...turgid eh...well in good clear light most would see it as eloquent...

...and Bernays?...come on ...if anything, that is classic cheap Bruce Barton schtick...

Cheers

blutto
 
Krebs cycle said:
Oh come on. I've been lurking around these forums for 3yrs. I've seen the general idea thrown about many times. Anyway this is also a moot point, because as soon as I brought the idea up, I got hammered immediately as if I was a Lance fanboy "perpetuating the myth" which clearly indicates the sentiment is alive and well. chewbaccD obviously went back and found my posts from a couple of years ago in which I strongly argued that LA must have taken PEDs because I said something like "he wasn't special". I meant that he wasn't that special that he could win 7x clean. I argued that he must have doped.

Regarding, the actual change in results for LA, yes of course, it is a matter of public record, but the relative contribution to that change from PEDs is completely unknown. I've never said that PEDs don't make a big difference to performance, I'm simply disputing the magnitude of that change and pointing out that there is in fact an upper limit, and based on the studies on EPO and what we know about elite athlete performance, I don't believe that upper limit is as high as what others seem to think it is.

Everyone has a right to an opinion. We can disagree, but there is no need for trolling or personal insults. Good to see the thread got back on topic :)
The focus of your argument has been on EPO. I think that's reductive and paints a portrait with too few strokes. There were other drugs involved. What were they? Were they, in some cases, unknown to the peloton?

Surely what happened to the Texan was an incredible, farcical metamorphosis
and we know that Ferrari was the grand alchemist behind it all. We don't know the details, we don't know the specific formula, though the results were plain to see and nothing less than extraordinary.

The USADA case, if successful would only shed light on this. It would thus have been well worth it all.
 
blutto said:
...turgid eh...well in good clear light most would see it as eloquent...

...and Bernays?...come on ...if anything, that is classic cheap Bruce Barton schtick...

Cheers

blutto
Nope it was pretty turgid. :D If it were to be published I'd have to make the all the necessary corrections.
 
blackcat said:
good post, turgid prose, but spot on, like the 131313 you quoted. This line stands out the image he produced of himself as the super clean cancer survivor that dominated the hardest bike race in the world longer than anyone before, the type of rider he was before he hooked up with Ferrari et al and the gargantuan profits
It was Stapleton's 101 Sports Marketing, and carving out that Cancer niche, in wider society, in the biggest marketplace in teh world. Stuff cycling. Lance was nicely repositioned in the Cancer market. Vested interests jumping on board, and have their marques to protect.

Basically, an Edward Bernays play. Gotta hand it to Lance and Stapleton for creating the script. Lance the actor. Stapleton the bard.
Not even the twittering of the birds, which has always seemed to me the most mind-deadening noise, could interfere with my narration. I had stood all night at my window in the apartment, Blackcat, reflecting on Ferrari and Lance. The previous evening I decided to pursue these reflections as long as I could, which is probably why I didn't sleep.

More than Edward Bernays, it's Bertolt Brecht that comes to mind: "Pity the country that needs heroes. Unhappy the land that is in need of heroes. Science has only one commandment: contribution." And:

Let nothing be called natural
In an age of bloody confusion,
Ordered disorder, planned caprice,
And dehumanized humanity, lest all things
Be held unalterable!
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
rhubroma said:
The focus of your argument has been on EPO. I think that's reductive and paints a portrait with too few strokes. There were other drugs involved. What were they? Were they, in some cases, unknown to the peloton?

Surely what happened to the Texan was an incredible, farcical metamorphosis
and we know that the Italian was the grand alchemist behind it all. We don't know the details, we don't know the specific formula, though the results were plain to see and nothing less than extraordinary.

The USADA case, if successful would only shed light on this. It would thus have been well worth it all.
fixed that for you
 
patricknd said:
fixed that for you
Indeed and there were also Spaniards and a Belgian involved. So. What's your point? I see this as just indicative of the European stage upon which the cycling drama gets played out. No more. He simply surrounded himself with an equip of the best experts, who are Euros. Yet the way he built his persona and corporate approach to prepotency and invincibility, was about as "all American" as it gets. In fact Lance, the Texan, the US Wonderboy script, was like some bad 60's Captain America comic book narrative: "Bam!" "Slam!" "Boom!" Or derived straight form the appalling neocon ideology of "Shock and Awe" firepower. The culture and expertise was largely European, the means of delivery and persona totally US.

Perhaps your correction to my text can thus be accompanied by some explanation.
 
Jun 28, 2012
12
0
0
rhubroma said:
Pre-cancer Lance didn't demonstrate a better performance in individual TT at the end of the Tour, which, as a non-contender, one would have expected that to be the case, because more "rested". He gave us no inkling, therefore, then, of his future awesomeness. Hence PEDs made up the difference. Otherwise how can we explain it?
But he was on PEDs both before and after cancer. With Ferrari pulling the strings the whole time. So you're saying that the PED cocktail got significantly more effective between 1996 and the fall of 1998? Or did every other rider's PED cocktail get weaker?
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
rhubroma said:
Indeed and there were also Spaniards and a Belgian involved. So. What's your point? I see this as just indicative of the European stage upon which the cycling drama gets played out. No more. He simply surrounded himself with an equip of the best experts, who are Euros. Yet the way he built his persona and corporate approach to prepotency and invincibility, was about as "all American" as it gets. In fact Lance, the Texan, the US Wonderboy script, was like some bad 60's Captain America comic book narrative: "Bam!" "Slam!" "Boom!" Or derived straight form the appalling neocon ideology of "Shock and Awe" firepower. The culture and expertise was largely European, the means of delivery and persona totally US.

Perhaps your correction to my text can thus be accompanied by some explanation.
stereotype much?
i'm helping you with your labels. a criminal organization of that type had to have the hand of an expert, a rube from Texas couldn't have orchestrated that, hence the italian. ;) my question is this: if he were from Iowa, would that have been included in your narrative? how about Montana? Kansas maybe? of course it wouldn't. that wouldn't fit into your tabloid journalism style of posting.
you don't need to hate those of us that grew up in Texas. we didn't get to ride horses to school, and most of us don't have oil wells in our back yards. so don't feel like you missed out. :D
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
red_flanders The Clinic 12

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts