The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
dimspace said:the one thing that surprises me the most is that according to his figures of the '99 tests, only 8% are positive or showing high epo levels...
8% of the pelaton doping? and with the assumption that the samples only came from stage winners etc, that makes it more like 2% of the pelaton doping in '99..
dimspace said:If lance stood up tommoro and said "look in 99 i took epo, so did everyone in the pelaton and if you want names have them, i was wrong, its ten years ago".. would fans accept that admission and get on with it.. or would he be treated int he same way as landis, hamilton et al.
Captain Serious said:
Argon Man said:The sooner it is accepted the late 90's was the late 90's and move on the better. What does it prove to constantly drag up information that we all know happened anyway. Move on and appreciate todays quality racing.
Not so. Some react better, some took bigger doses, some took it more often. It's not equalising, it's the opposite where those who break the rules the most and who risk their health the most can see the greatest changes in their performance.dimspace said:everything was on a level playing field.. everyone used it, alls fair...
Stani Kléber said:Not so. Some react better, some took bigger doses, some took it more often. It's not equalising, it's the opposite where those who break the rules the most and who risk their health the most can see the greatest changes in their performance.
dimspace said:a everything was on a level playing field.. everyone used it, alls fair...
i would have to erase cycling history from my brain, roche, kelly, millar, delgado, zabel, cippo, fignon, merckx, the whole bleedin lot of em.. .
Yes, of course.dimspace said:ah.. so weve moved on from who doped.. to who doped the most..
This is one of the saddest aspects.BigBoat said:AND Do you realize there are MANY very very talented young men racing cat 1 and low level professional teams that did not dope and so never ever saw the top of the sport even though they could have perhaps been Grand Tour contenders if they could have seen a 25-35% sustainable power based gain on a Dr. Ferrari drug program of autologous blood doping and 02 carriers? And did you know there were many pros that did nto dope during the 1990s and do not now?
."
mwbyrd said:Yet LA trains for 3 months and goes out and runs around a 2:50 marathon. People train for their lifetimes to run that fast.
No matter what, he's an athletic freak. Screw the numbers, maybe he can actually take the pain longer than most.
He was beating pro triathletes when he was 13 or 14. People forget about that.
How come we don't assume Tyler Phinney is doping. Look at what he's accomplished in two years.
I think we all - ME INCLUDED - spend too much time discussing this...
The whole story that Armstrong is more driven, trains harder, trains smarter, takes more notice of his equipment, pedals a bit faster etc. is great for selling books and promoting companies like Nike or Oakley.Robert Merivel said:Exactly, EXACTLY! There are humans and then there are the humans that have something most other humans do not possess (but want!). An elite physiology and a mind that is capable of pushing that physiology to it's limits THEN beyond.
patswana said:The whole story that Armstrong is more driven, trains harder, trains smarter, takes more notice of his equipment, pedals a bit faster etc. is great for selling books and promoting companies like Nike or Oakley.
But go and spend some time with elite athletes in general. The vast majority are type A personalities. The majority are incredibly driven. Pretty much all hate to lose. Most obsess over their equipment, their diets, their training, their progress.
Armstrong's PR people imply that other cyclists sit around drinking beer and eating pies, rarely train, never ride the important stages before the race, don't really want to win, don't really care about their equipment, don't look into the merits of different training techniques etc. I find this highly insulting to those other cyclists and think you'd have to be either very naive or gullible to believe it.
patswana said:I find this highly insulting to those other cyclists and think you'd have to be either very naive or gullible to believe it.
patswana said:Armstrong's PR people imply that other cyclists sit around drinking beer and eating pies, rarely train, never ride the important stages before the race, don't really want to win, don't really care about their equipment, don't look into the merits of different training techniques etc. I find this highly insulting to those other cyclists and think you'd have to be either very naive or gullible to believe it.
patswana said:Armstrong's PR people imply that other cyclists sit around drinking beer and eating pies, rarely train, never ride the important stages before the race, I find this highly insulting to those other cyclists and think you'd have to be either very naive or gullible to believe it.