if Arbiter is a troll, is he better than Vadar at ThePaceline?

[Dr. Maserati]

Don't you think most cycling fans know Lance doped? Reading Arbiter's posts, he clearly did. He is like most people who discount it because they believe Armstrong was one of many, if not most, so it didn't make any difference to the results in any event - they were all at it. There is truth to that.

Some can't understand why people focus on Armstrong's doping relentlessly, as if proving it will shatter Armstrong's reputation, but also worship other riders from the past and present who doped. Why doesn't doping ruing their reputation? Contador has just won the tour de france with power numbers that are off the charts, but there is only one thread on it - started by me. That speaks quite a lot.

The reason there are so many Lance threads is simple - there are many posters who shootdown any arguement that he doped!

In reference to Contador - I agree his victoty is questionable - (and in my view he doped) but you didnt find anyone saying "Alberto has never tested positive" or you are all Arberto haters's. That is the key difference in any debate about LA.

I agree most informed cyclists will accept he doped - although I do find some who prefer to give him - and others - the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't think that explains it. The same people who pursue Armstrong respect other riders who have doped, so it seems that they have a problem with Armstrong in particular, not doping.

But Armstrong has never tested positive by the doping authorities of course. Neither has AC, though he had a bag with AC written on it, but nobody goes after him.

You should come clean and admit it's LA you have an issue with, not doping.

I realise you are new on this forum - so you have not had a chance to view my other posts in regards to my views on the doping subject.

I have said before - on numerous threads - about my strong feelings on the anti -doping issue and that I believe it is the fault with the stakeholders and the UCI.

 

[Eva Maria]

But Armstrong has never tested positive by the doping authorities of course. Neither has AC, though he had a bag with AC written on it, but nobody goes after him.

You should come clean and admit it's LA you have an issue with, not doping.

You would have a hard time finding many here who do not think that AC is a doper. The key difference is he does not have legions of clueless groupies who leap to his defense whenever anyone questions his miracles.

 

[Hugh Januss]

You would have a hard time finding many here who do not think that AC is a doper. The key difference is he does not have legions of clueless groupies who leap to his defense whenever anyone questions his miracles.

They are all on a Spanish language forum somewhere.

 

[53 x 11]

You contradict yourself in that answer. Armstrong doped, just as Contador dopes, just as Pantani doped, etc, but there were/are all great cyclists who would be at the top of their fields in a totally clean peloton. They dope simply to maintain their natural advantage over other dopers. Yet you chose to target Armstrong and pretend he is a special type of fraud.

You in particular have refused to answer on this thread whether you report Armstrong groupies to the moderators. This is zealotry.

You are the equal opposite to the groupies you hate that insist Armstrong is clean.

Hello Arbi, how have you been? We have missed you.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

.....Armstrong doped, just as Contador dopes, just as Pantani doped, etc, but there were/are all great cyclists who would be at the top of their fields in a totally clean peloton. They dope simply to maintain their natural advantage over other dopers....

In responce to the above that is not actually true.

Different athletes respond to the PED's in different ways. You mentioned Pantani who was an excellent responder to EPO - as discussed in the book "The Death of Marco Pantani".

Also -if you have two athletes of the same natural ability that respond the same to the drugs then it is the one who is prepared to dope more that will be better ie the rider who is prepared to risk going to 60% than going to 55%.

While Pantani had amazing natural ability it is a matter of speculation if he would have won clean in a clean peloton.

 

[Eva Maria]

You contradict yourself in that answer. Armstrong doped, just as Contador dopes, just as Pantani doped, etc, but there were/are all great cyclists who would be at the top of their fields in a totally clean peloton. They dope simply to maintain their natural advantage over other dopers. Yet you chose to target Armstrong and pretend he is a special type of fraud.
.

I lived and raced in Europe for 6 years. I understand why people dope. Some of my best friends doped. If you read my posts you will see that it is seldom the doping that I am discussing. Creating elaborate mythology to cover up your doping, enlisting clueless fans and media to spread the myth. I see little positive in these actions.

Landis, Hamilton, Vino, Armstrong, Di Lucca, the UCI, Ferrari, Checchini, Santuccione. They all have earned our contempt.

 

[Eva Maria]

No, you mean it's slightly more complicated than being 100% true, and we just don't know for sure, but is bascially right.

Edit. Some people respond to training better than others too.

We do know for sure that all humans react differently to Dope. Studies on EPO alone show huge spreads in improvement, 3-18%. Similarly diverse results were seen in use of Sildenafil citrate at altitude.

When two professional athletes take the same drug and one improves 13% and the other 3% the playing field is not level.

 

[Eva Maria]

Just like I read you said you worked for a sponsor. You seem to have a different answer for why you are connected to the sport depending on the situation. But to take you at your word for a second, have you ever thought you maybe bitter that you weren't good enough to be a champion even if you had doped, and that reason could be why you target Armstrong and his fans over all over riders? Not everybody can be the best, however you shouldn't hate the best because of this.

I note you still haven't denied reporting posters you disagree with to the moderators.

I have been involved in the sport for 25 years.

The topic of many threads on this board is Armstrong. If you started spewing Landis, Hamilton, or Di Lucca BS I would, and have, discussed them as well.

 

[Eva Maria]

Who are the "clean" riders that you do respect?

Andy Hampsten, and a bunch of other guys who names you do not know as you just started following the sport in 1999.

 

[unsheath]

You contradict yourself in that answer. Armstrong doped, just as Contador dopes, just as Pantani doped, etc, but there were/are all great cyclists who would be at the top of their fields in a totally clean peloton. They dope simply to maintain their natural advantage over other dopers. Yet you chose to target Armstrong and pretend he is a special type of fraud.

You in particular have refused to answer on this thread whether you report Armstrong groupies to the moderators. This is zealotry.

You are the equal opposite to the groupies you hate that insist Armstrong is clean.

You rise from the ashes of your fallen comrades. Welcome back troll!!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No, you mean it's slightly more complicated than being 100% true, and we just don't know for sure, but is bascially right.

Edit. Some people respond to training better than others too.

Yes some people respond to better to training too....
However your point that you were making was

..... but there were/are all great cyclists who would be at the top of their fields in a totally clean peloton. They dope simply to maintain their natural advantage over other dopers...

..which I said was not true.

I also note that you say the word "too" in your reference to training. Does that mean you accept my stance?

If you have any new data which claims that PED's work exactly the same on everyone I would appreciate a link or quote to review it.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Spot the assertion and the assumption....

In other words, you can't name them because you know they were all on dope as well and you would look hypocritical.

Edit. I see you are still refusing to deny reporting posters to the moderators that you disagree with. You probably have sent off another report. Only one view is allowed or it is "trolling".

Who are you, and what have you done with.............. TheArbiter?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Spot the assertion and the assumption....

In other words, you can't name them because you know they were all on dope as well and you would look hypocritical.

Edit. I see you are still refusing to deny reporting posters to the moderators that you disagree with. You probably have sent off another report. Only one view is allowed or it is "trolling".

You are new here - but there is no need to make your views on someone personal.

If you have a view - by all means bring it up and we can discuss it.

 

[scribe]

FWIW: Trolling does not extend to someone with a different viewpoint than one's own. This community seems to be systemically confused about that. Trolling on the net has traditionally only related to the spamming of forum threads with intentionally disruptive posting by an individual.

 

[Hugh Januss]

FWIW: Trolling does not extend to someone with a different viewpoint than one's own. This community seems to be systemically confused about that. Trolling on the net has traditionally only related to the spamming of forum threads with intentionally disruptive posting by an individual.

Spoken like someone who knows.

 

[scribe]

Spoken like someone who knows.

Yes. I do.

____

 

[scribe]

So? Riders will react differently to lots of thihng - training, diet, legal supplements, mental approach, sleep. If they are generally a good responder to these things then they will be a good responder to drugs as well. If Armstrong responded to dope so well then he would have won the ToF before 1999, of course.

There is every reason to believe the riders that have been at the front of the peloton would be there if there was a way to ensure cycling was 100% clean. To say not is the same as the myth as 'lance never doped'.

It's good to have more balance in the forum. I hope they don't keep banning arbiter.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

My 4:05 post deals with this point. If they are good responders then they will usually be good responders across the board. Bradly Wiggins is a good responder to the particular training he chooses to do. He was a good responder to track training, and now he is a good responder to mountain tour training. You don't have any basis for your assertion that Armstrong and others were only at the top because they responded well to drugs. It's just a myth you need to keep alive for your own reasons. They were generally good responders to everything - Armstrong particularly to sleep.

For instance, throughout Armstrong's career he would tend to recover at a similar rate to other riders during his first week and half of the tour, but in the third week recover better than other riders. That is not consistent with dope being the decisive factor. If that was the case the gap would have been the same all the way through and not just in the second half, when compared to other dopers. Whether on dope or not, over a three week period his body degrades slower than other dopers.

This is all very interesting and new to me - I would apprciate a link or a quote to view these claims.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Spoken like someone who knows.

I know it was mentioned that Scribe is atroll - I dont think that is fair.
This is from wiki and is what I would define as a troll...

"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community,"

 

[Eva Maria]

So? Riders will react differently to lots of thihng - training, diet, legal supplements, mental approach, sleep. If they are generally a good responder to these things then they will be a good responder to drugs as well. If Armstrong responded to dope so well then he would have won the ToF before 1999, of course.

There is every reason to believe the riders that have been at the front of the peloton would be there if there was a way to ensure cycling was 100% clean. To say not is the same as the myth as 'lance never doped'.

Please show me ONE training method, Legal supplement, etc. that can give a highly trained Professional athlete a 13% increase?

Your list might result in a 1% variance, EPO can result in 15% difference between responders and non responders.

You also assume that all have access to the best gear. Ulrich paid over $100,000 to Fuentes. How many Neo pro's can afford that on a $30,000 annual salary?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

What is personal there? Her assertion that I only got into cycling in 1999. (She doesn't know this, plus it reveals my claim that everything is about Armstrong for people like her - and doesn't necessarily mean you don't know about the history of cycling in any event.)

Or what about the attack on "Armstrong groupies" - dimissing millions of people around the world and putting them into one group.

Firstly you made the claim the EM reports posters that don't agree with them - that is personal, in particular when you have nothing to back up that claim.
And even if someone does report a post or poster it is up for the Mods to then deal with .

I have reported a poster for using racist and insulting remarks - am i going to feel your wrath for that?

Also you have come in on a thread and brought it off topic - which is unnecessary.

 

[usedtobefast]

It's good to have more balance in the forum. I hope they don't keep banning arbiter.

agreed. things don't always have to be so linear. a non sequiter can move things along as well.

 

[Eva Maria]

What is personal there? Her assertion that I only got into cycling in 1999. (She doesn't know this, plus it reveals my claim that everything is about Armstrong for people like her - and doesn't necessarily mean you don't know about the history of cycling in any event.)

Or what about the attack on "Armstrong groupies" - dimissing millions of people around the world and putting them into one group.

1. I am a dude.
2. Armstrong groupies, Floyd groupies, Tyler Groupies. Those fans who suspend rational thought when it comes to their hero.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

What claim are you struggling with?

To be honest- all of it as I have never heard of any of that before and it goes contrary to what I have read.

But if you wish to keep discussing this subject than maybe you should open a new thread where I can read your claims.