Indurain's physiology

[buckwheat]

Are you suggesting Santa Claus is on a doiping programme?

Seriously though, Im not sure why you take an interest in cycling if thats how you feel?

I'm stating that Pharmstrong and his ilk are just as much of a fantasy as Santa. (I fear I have to spell it out for you.)

I take an interest because I love riding my bike, and endurance sports are something I have a talent for.

The sport is about the masses getting outside and participating in a great form or exercise, recreation, and transportation. It's not about a drugged up fraud(s) creating a cult of personality.

I can spot complete bs when a guy who is supposed to be one of the greatest endurance athletes of all time has a tough time running a 3hr marathon.

I can spot the absurdity of fanboys thinking a 18:20 5k is something to be impressed with.

 

[Race Radio]

I'm a big fan of you too, but who are Micheal Creed and Richard Sachs?

Why is it the fanboys only know about one rider and one bike?

 

[andy1234]

Why is it the fanboys only know about one rider and one bike?

F@@k off with the fanboy s**t
Your assumption is so wrong it hurts.

 

[andy1234]

I'm stating that Pharmstrong and his ilk are just as much of a fantasy as Santa. (I fear I have to spell it out for you.)

I take an interest because I love riding my bike, and endurance sports are something I have a talent for.

The sport is about the masses getting outside and participating in a great form or exercise, recreation, and transportation. It's not about a drugged up fraud(s) creating a cult of personality.

I can spot complete bs when a guy who is supposed to be one of the greatest endurance athletes of all time has a tough time running a 3hr marathon.

I can spot the absurdity of fanboys thinking a 18:20 5k is something to be impressed with.

I'm not suggesting that Armstrong is the greatest athlete etc etc, but the physiology it takes to become a cyclist is so specialised that the running times of riders are irrelevant. Also if you think you could compete against a clean indurain or Armstrong and be competitive, you should give it a shot.

 

[pmcg76]

I'm stating that Pharmstrong and his ilk are just as much of a fantasy as Santa. (I fear I have to spell it out for you.)

I take an interest because I love riding my bike, and endurance sports are something I have a talent for.

The sport is about the masses getting outside and participating in a great form or exercise, recreation, and transportation. It's not about a drugged up fraud(s) creating a cult of personality.

I can spot complete bs when a guy who is supposed to be one of the greatest endurance athletes of all time has a tough time running a 3hr marathon.

I can spot the absurdity of fanboys thinking a 18:20 5k is something to be impressed with.

To be fair, I am sure Armstrong has run faster than 18.20 for 5k. He would never have been a National level triathlete if that was the bset he could do. Maybe a fair analysis would be to go back and look at his running times from his triathlon career, would give a better indication of potential. Christ even my PB for 5km is under 18mins and I was crap at running.

 

[Race Radio]

To be fair, I am sure Armstrong has run faster than 18.20 for 5k. He would never have been a National level triathlete if that was the bset he could do. Maybe a fair analysis would be to go back and look at his running times from his triathlon career, would give a better indication of potential. Christ even my PB for 5km is under 18mins and I was crap at running.

He was about a 15:45 guy....or about 1:30 slower then the fastest woman.

 

[buckwheat]

To be fair, I am sure Armstrong has run faster than 18.20 for 5k. He would never have been a National level triathlete if that was the bset he could do. Maybe a fair analysis would be to go back and look at his running times from his triathlon career, would give a better indication of potential. Christ even my PB for 5km is under 18mins and I was crap at running.

The 18:20 was quoted in Outside or someother big publicantion. They noted that he just jumped in the race without a warmup.

I'm pretty sure a peak Pharmstrong could break 16. A nice time for a weekend warrior, which would be competitive in a local 5k road race. Not the stuff which sports legends are made of however.

When I'm thinking of legends, I'm thinking of a guy like Joe Montana who was a 6'10" high jumper, and who, btw, wasn't really noted as an athletic freak.

The 2:46 approx marathon Pharmstrong ran is a nice time for a good club runner. Not so much for a guy with a supposed resting HR of 32, VO2 max of 81 and all these other supposed freakish capacities.

Is someone who runs a 15:30 5k a badass? Of course.

An all time great? NO!

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

He was about a 15:45 guy....or about 1:30 slower then the fastest woman.

Armstrong's "inspiring" marathon performances have been remarkably average for the worlds greatest and most dedicated endurance athlete ever, with the highest ever recorded lactate threshold, and biggest heart ever etc etc

If you consider that Laurent Brochard, Abraham Olano and Laurent Jalabert are all 20-30 minutes faster than him over the marathon it's all rather odd.

Add to that the fact that plenty of club runners with full time jobs can match/beat him and it's all rather embarassing really.

 

[buckwheat]

I'm not suggesting that Armstrong is the greatest athlete etc etc, but the physiology it takes to become a cyclist is so specialised that the running times of riders are irrelevant.

Wrong, endurance sports are oxygen delivery sports period. Lots of cross pollination.

Also if you think you could compete against a clean indurain or Armstrong and be competitive, you should give it a shot.

There is no way I could "give it a shot" as they both owe their ENTIRE careers to PED usage.

YOU seem to have missed the point that this is what the whole subject matter of the clinic is about.

You seem to have missed the point that once you start relying on PED's, mentally, there is no way you can get off them. The psychological effect is well known with steroids.



Pharmstrong has been jacked since 16 or 17 years old.

 

[buckwheat]

To be fair, I am sure Armstrong has run faster than 18.20 for 5k. He would never have been a National level triathlete if that was the bset he could do. Maybe a fair analysis would be to go back and look at his running times from his triathlon career, would give a better indication of potential. Christ even my PB for 5km is under 18mins and I was crap at running.

I'm noting more that we have .150 hitters in youth leagues(fanboys), judging a .250 hitter, in the big leagues(LA).

I'm not saying Pharmstrong isn't a badass in the general scheme of things. Any professional athlete is.

I'm saying that amongst Pro's, LA is quite ordinary without the drugs, but we'll never know because there isn't a control period for him, ie, a time he wasn't doping.

With a semi? clean Flo Jo. Silver in the Olympic 200m in '84 is incredible. World Class athlete.

What she went on to do? Unapproachable, even by jacked athletes like Marion Jones.

 

[andy1234]

Wrong, endurance sports are oxygen delivery sports period. Lots of cross pollination.




There is no way I could "give it a shot" as they both owe their ENTIRE careers to PED usage.

YOU seem to have missed the point that this is what the whole subject matter of the clinic is about.

You seem to have missed the point that once you start relying on PED's, mentally, there is no way you can get off them. The psychological effect is well known with steroids.



Pharmstrong has been jacked since 16 or 17 years old.

Oxygen delivery to muscle is dependent upon the mechanics that the muscle was created under. Cycling creates a very specific muscle break down and subsequent recovery.
Of course a world class endurance athlete should be very good at most other endurance sports but it doesnt necessarliy follow that a world class rower will make a world class cyclist will make a world class runner...

Forget Armstrong. If you can perform at the level of a clean Indurain , Ulrich or whichever highest level pro cyclist you care to name then hats off to you.

Where are you at in your cycling career at the moment? Olympic hopeful, potential pro, something else?
let me know. However, I suspect you have got too much on your plate, internet wise, to live up to your full potential.....

 

[buckwheat]

Oxygen delivery to muscle is dependent upon the mechanics that the muscle was created under. Cycling creates a very specific muscle break down and subsequent recovery.
Of course a world class endurance athlete should be very good at most other endurance sports but it doesnt necessarliy follow that a world class rower will make a world class cyclist will make a world class runner...

Forget Armstrong. If you can perform at the level of a clean Indurain , Ulrich or whichever highest level pro cyclist you care to name then hats off to you.

Where are you at in your cycling career at the moment? Olympic hopeful, potential pro, something else?
let me know. However, I suspect you have got too much on your plate, internet wise, to live up to your full potential.....

Comparing rowers to cyclists or runners????

Re the last paragraph. Why would I let you know? You going to get me on a "program?"

As for me having too much on my plate due to the internet, are you one of Pharmstrong's interns who's getting course credit? If not, you're wasting just as much time as I am.

 

[andy1234]

Comparing rowers to cyclists or runners????

Re the last paragraph. Why would I let you know? You going to get me on a "program?"

As for me having too much on my plate due to the internet, are you one of Pharmstrong's interns who's getting course credit? If not, you're wasting just as much time as I am.

I'm wasting time on the Internet because I tried to be a pro but wasn't good enough. I'm just concerned that someone with as much endurance potential as you is going to blow your chance.

 

[buckwheat]

I'm wasting time on the Internet because I tried to be a pro but wasn't good enough. I'm just concerned that someone with as much endurance potential as you is going to blow your chance.

Dude, use google to find out who Creed and Sachs are, and then resume the Ostrich-like idolatry.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Wow! So many multi-sport nerds on a cycling forum!

Who really gives a rat's *** what your time was for a given swim, run, row, or whatever? Ease off the ego-stroking, and let's get some sh*t-talking done!

Let's get back to pro cycling.

 

[andy1234]

Dude, use google to find out who Creed and Sachs are, and then resume the Ostrich-like idolatry.

If you only do this to get a reaction out of people, your really good at it.


If you believe that a tour de France winner, Indurain or otherwise, has less genetic endurance talent than yourself, I want to get you in a lab.

Your lack of respect for the athletic levels of pro cyclists, doped or otherwise can only be born through ignorance, so I will forgive you for that.

 

[buckwheat]

If you only do this to get a reaction out of people, your really good at it.


If you believe that a tour de France winner, Indurain or otherwise, has less genetic endurance talent than yourself, I want to get you in a lab.

Your lack of respect for the athletic levels of pro cyclists, doped or otherwise can only be born through ignorance, so I will forgive you for that.

Your reverence for guys who are obviously frauds shows you have little championship mettle.

Any guy that climbs into a boxing ring to fight, goes in there to kick ***. It's different in cycling?

Evidently you didn't see my posts where I acknowledged LA and Mig are professional athletes, and recognized that took a lot of ability to get to that level..

What that "natural" ability enables them to do once they got there is unknown and will always be unknown.

If you think that's a satisfactory state of affairs, there is nothing else I can say to you.

As for what my athletic abilities are or were, I'm fairly confident of them. It's in the genes.

I don't trust that having or not having athletic ability means much of anything outside of the ability to physically perform.

Evidently you ascribe more importance to the ability to ride a bike, or run fast, than I do.

 

[buckwheat]

Wow! So many multi-sport nerds on a cycling forum!

Who really gives a rat's *** what your time was for a given swim, run, row, or whatever? Ease off the ego-stroking, and let's get some sh*t-talking done!

Let's get back to pro cycling.

I don't know.

With Pacquio for instance, I think it's extremely illustrative of the efficacy of PED's that the guy won't get in the ring with Mayweather if there are strict drug controls.

The guy would be deflated both physically and mentally.


In the same way, Armstrong is very ordinary (amongst pro's) if he can't juice.

 

[andy1234]

Your reverence for guys who are obviously frauds shows you have little championship mettle.

Any guy that climbs into a boxing ring to fight, goes in there to kick ***. It's different in cycling?

Evidently you didn't see my posts where I acknowledged LA and Mig are professional athletes, and recognized that took a lot of ability to get to that level..

What that "natural" ability enables them to do once they got there is unknown and will always be unknown.

If you think that's a satisfactory state of affairs, there is nothing else I can say to you.

As for what my athletic abilities are or were, I'm fairly confident of them. It's in the genes.

I don't trust that having or not having athletic ability means much of anything outside of the ability to physically perform.

Evidently you ascribe more importance to the ability to ride a bike, or run fast, than I do.

Uh oh, you just insulted my championship mettle Grrrrr!!

I place a lot more importance in being a good person, father, husband than I do in being an great athlete.

I do, however, place a lot of importance on ability to ride a bike when I am watching a bike race though. It kind of helps with deciding whose neck to hang the medals around.

For someone who doesn't place much importance to sport, you spend a lot of time discussing it, and not in a passive, I find it unimportant kid of fashion.

 

[buckwheat]

Uh oh, you just insulted my championship mettle Grrrrr!!

Plain and simply, if you had any level of ability, you'd be insulted that guys close to your level were being deified when you knew they were frauds.

I place a lot more importance in being a good person, father, husband than I do in being an great athlete.

Do I have to point out that that's an entirely different perspective than the one Pharmstrong has?

I do, however, place a lot of importance on ability to ride a bike when I am watching a bike race though. It kind of helps with deciding whose neck to hang the medals around.

Unfortunately, because of doping, we don't have the slightest clue as to who should receive those medals. If you think otherwise you are either inexperienced or misinformed.

For someone who doesn't place much importance to sport, you spend a lot of time discussing it, and not in a passive, I find it unimportant kid of fashion.

I'm much more interested in the morality, logic, and arguments, of the participants on this forum, and in society, than I am in who wins a sporting event.

Sports are games. Obviously the deck is stacked in favor of those with genetic advantages. I am pretty blown away by the rewards conferred upon those who win sporting competitions. To me it indicates a society that's completely out of whack. The continued defense of Armstrong by many also seems to me to be indicative of a screwed up society.

 

[andy1234]

Plain and simply, if you had any level of ability, you'd be insulted that guys close to your level were being deified when you knew they were frauds.




Do I have to point out that that's an entirely different perspective than the one Pharmstrong has?



Unfortunately, because of doping, we don't have the slightest clue as to who should receive those medals. If you think otherwise you are either inexperienced or misinformed.



I'm much more interested in the morality, logic, and arguments, of the participants on this forum, and in society, than I am in who wins a sporting event.

Sports are games. Obviously the deck is stacked in favor of those with genetic advantages. I am pretty blown away by the rewards conferred upon those who win sporting competitions. To me it indicates a society that's completely out of whack. The continued defense of Armstrong by many also seems to me to be indicative of a screwed up society.

Plain and simply, I am not insulted by guys who were close to my level who were deified. I rode against Vinokourov, Boogerd and Hincapie amongst others at one point or another.
It looks like they were prepared to do things that I was not AND they were better than me.
I genuinely do not know of one rider who ended up a household name who wasnt a class above everyone before they signed a contract, which is why I'm not so insulted to see them succeed.

You are obviously an intelligent dude, so let me state this one more time - Im not an Armstrong supporter, but I know enough about what it takes to reach his level to know he never would have been a ****kicker, dope or no dope.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

I know enough about what it takes to reach his level to know he never would have been a ****kicker, dope or no dope.

Huh? Not understanding...

 

[acoggan]

the physiology it takes to become a cyclist is so specialised that the running times of riders are irrelevant.

I'm not sure I would label them "irrelevant", but clearly the demands of the two sports are sufficiently different that somebody can excel at one yet be only fairly average at the other. Certainly, you can't use any discrepancy between someone's running and cycling ability as evidence of doping.

 

[laziali]

Here is an old link. I am sure there are others

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/banesto-named-in-drug-case-636949.html

Cheers for the link to Thomas Davy's sworn testimony about systematic doping in Banesto. Only thing is, according to the article, "In Banesto, there was a system of doping with medical supervision," Thomas Davy, who rode with Banesto from 1995 to 1996, told the court."

So, his evidence doesn't go to Big Mig's first four wins. Not saying for a second Indurain didn't dope, tho.

 

[blutto]

Cheers for the link to Thomas Davy's sworn testimony about systematic doping in Banesto. Only thing is, according to the article, "In Banesto, there was a system of doping with medical supervision," Thomas Davy, who rode with Banesto from 1995 to 1996, told the court."

So, his evidence doesn't go to Big Mig's first four wins. Not saying for a second Indurain didn't dope, tho.

...sorry to drop this post here but I was asked to move it from where it was originally posted...yes it is a cut and paste, but the story is still relevant since the graphs in question originated in this thread...the innuendo line refers to the the other thread, didnt edit, sorry...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
ok...ok...so you will take innuendo as a cheap substitute for fact...well I have something here that I would love your input on and it is kinda innuendoism with some facts thrown in for good measure...its a bit of confusion at this point and badly needs some clarity...it involves numbers which is good...and seems like an interesting comparison...

...would like to start with some background assumptions...which represent some things that are generally agreed upon in these here parts...

...assume that EPO use trumps clean riders...

....assume that the EPO era started in 91...which is when Greg LeMond was faced for the first time with a peloton addled with EPO...and consequently lost because of it...

...assume that LeMond and Indurain were at reasonably similar levels in the 90 Tour...

...assume that LeMond is clean as a whistle throughout his career and Indurain is dirty post 90 ( and that his drug use directly leads to his Tour wins and LeMond's retirement )

...against this background I will introduce some wattage numbers gleaned from some graphs introduced on another thread on these forums...these graphs show wattage outputs for LeMond in 89 and Indurain in 94....when normalized for weight they show that LeMond actually had a higher output than Indurain....

...now these normalized graph numbers don't fit with our assumptions do they...as in LeMond's output as a clean rider is bigger than a doped rider who was level with him in the pre-dope days...

...so does this mean that LeMond really was the greatest rider of all time because he could beat the output of a very talented doper ( because if you run these numbers across the assumptions and the graph numbers LeMond is in the neighborhood of having an output 15% higher than Indurain, as in an absolute 5% gain as shown in the graphs plus a minus 10% to offset the gain Indurain would have gotten from drug use )...and what does it say about his reason for quitting...because according to the weighted numbers the 89 LeMond was markedly superior to the 94 Indurain...does this mean that Indurain didn't dope...or is this in realm of miraculous intervention...

...hoping you can bring some clarity to this...because I'm all mixed up...and apparently numbers don't lie...and then there are those assumptions...confusion..confusion...

....hope to hear from you soon...

Cheers

blutto