Is anyone else getting tired

[riobonito92]

It doesn't change the fact that if Cancellara could afford the best so could Boonen and the rest of the main contenders. They got to that position because they are also the best.

Unless Saxobank have discovered something new.

But I don't believe that. Cancellara attacked in a cross wind and no-one reacted. Then when the road turned and the wind was behind him, he really put down the hammer. At the same time, the members of the group behind were watching each other. Boonen went to the front but he had already worked harder than Cancellara and so the group went backwards.

That is my analysis, and it may be flawed, but I think it is a more worthwhile approach than speculating about doping in this particular case.

 

[JPM London]

Looking at it logically, lets take 2 US racers who developed at the same time. Lance and Bobby Julich. As amateurs and pre EPO, both were considered huge talents with Armstrong having better one day racing potential and Julich having better stage racing potential. Julich was not selected for the Olympics in 92 because he wasnt a one day rider even though he finished as top US Amateur and in the Top 10 at the 92 Tour du Pont(US biggest stage race).

If people use the clean winners equals doped winners, then how did Julich never win a GT but Lance won 7 Tours easily, yes we know all the spin, theories but look at it logically.

Running the horrible risk of turning this into an LA thread I just wanted to add a comment about him being a one-day vs a stage racer. This might be part of the "spin and theories" you refer to, but to LA's own admission he was extremely bad at driving tactically and patiently in his younger years. To me that can easily explain a lot of the difference between being a potential stage racer or not...

Apart from that I agree with your post and conclusion. But were it any different, we wouldn't have anything to discuss either

 

[ChrisE]

And how did Ullrich get to be in a position where he could afford $100,000 doping programs? generous rich uncle? Lotto win? If success can only be achieved through a $100,000 program ..snip logical post.....

SirLes, I don't know where you have been but you need to understand a few things.

1) Using this type of level playing field logic with Cancellara flies in the face of the anti-LA crowd in here by proxy, so you need to pipe down. You have probably caused much confusion with your posts, and that is bad. Of course I am assuming your adversaries here are using their brain.

2) Certain riders can afford the best. The difference between the best and the $100k program is taking a one day rider and making him a 7 time tour winner. Though, I am confused that raceradio lumped LA, JU, and Basso into the same pile earlier. That is the first time that has happened. Hopefully you have not caused irreparable harm to rr.

3) Sometimes you get a good sale. The 99 tour winnner didn't have much money to start with but somehow he ended up with the best pills. Admittedly this doesn't work well with this money logic of winners/losers but you gotta believe in something.

4) People with the best doping programs money can buy, along with being the best responders, coincides with our personal dislike of a rider. Cancellara is not disliked so he is on the same program as everybody else.

Hopefully you will fall in line now. Thanks.

 

[patricknd]

SirLes, I don't know where you have been but you need to understand a few things.

1) Using this type of level playing field logic with Cancellara flies in the face of the anti-LA crowd in here by proxy, so you need to pipe down. You have probably caused much confusion with your posts, and that is bad. Of course I am assuming your adversaries here are using their brain.

2) Certain riders can afford the best. The difference between the best and the $100k program is taking a one day rider and making him a 7 time tour winner. Though, I am confused that raceradio lumped LA, JU, and Basso into the same pile earlier. That is the first time that has happened. Hopefully you have not caused irreparable harm to rr.

3) Sometimes you get a good sale. The 99 tour winnner didn't have much money to start with but somehow he ended up with the best pills. Admittedly this doesn't work well with this money logic of winners/losers but you gotta believe in something.

4) People with the best doping programs money can buy, along with being the best responders, coincides with our personal dislike of a rider. Cancellara is not disliked so he is on the same program as everybody else.

Hopefully you will fall in line now. Thanks.

it's nice of you to be so helpful.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

SirLes, I don't know where you have been but you need to understand a few things.

1) Using this type of level playing field logic with Cancellara flies in the face of the anti-LA crowd in here by proxy, so you need to pipe down. You have probably caused much confusion with your posts, and that is bad. Of course I am assuming your adversaries here are using their brain.

2) Certain riders can afford the best. The difference between the best and the $100k program is taking a one day rider and making him a 7 time tour winner. Though, I am confused that raceradio lumped LA, JU, and Basso into the same pile earlier. That is the first time that has happened. Hopefully you have not caused irreparable harm to rr.

3) Sometimes you get a good sale. The 99 tour winnner didn't have much money to start with but somehow he ended up with the best pills. Admittedly this doesn't work well with this money logic of winners/losers but you gotta believe in something.

4) People with the best doping programs money can buy, along with being the best responders, coincides with our personal dislike of a rider. Cancellara is not disliked so he is on the same program as everybody else.

Hopefully you will fall in line now. Thanks.

Wow - did Cancellara win the Tour of Flanders and Paris Roubaix in his first year, I must have missed that.

 

[Polish]

A couple points on the idea that certain riders "respond to PEDS"
better than other riders....

First, we should be THANKFUL that the CHAMPION riders are the ones
that respond better to PEDS. Fausto, Eddy, Sean, Lance, etc.
It would really suck if the nerdy/tweeby riders were the ones who
responded better lol.

Second, when gene doping kicks in all bets are off. It is one thing
to respond better to PEDS naturally - but when a rider is gene doped
to respond better to PEDS, that will invalidate the victory
Will not seem right. Be un-natural

 

[Epicycle]

Can't forget that Saxo are looking for a new sponsor. It would be no surprise for a team like that to push the envelope a little.

Also you never know what is going on behind the scenes with the biopassport. Some top riders may know they are targeted or feel that way so they are less likely to take chances. Doping is always relative and the relative difference of what chances guys are willing to take may be less now than in the past but still produce the same disparities in performance.

 

[ChrisE]

Wow - did Cancellara win the Tour of Flanders and Paris Roubaix in his first year, I must have missed that.

Doc, have you been sneaking free meds from the cabinet again?

Please explain what you are talking about. I'm sure there is some logic here. Thanks.

 

[Anonymous]

You know what I like? I like a nice natural pair of C-cups. I think from now on, I will try to divert every doping thread to the topic of women's breasts. Would that make everyone happy?

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

SirLes, I don't know where you have been but you need to understand a few things.

1) Using this type of level playing field logic with Cancellara flies in the face of the anti-LA crowd in here by proxy, so you need to pipe down. You have probably caused much confusion with your posts, and that is bad. Of course I am assuming your adversaries here are using their brain.

2) Certain riders can afford the best. The difference between the best and the $100k program is taking a one day rider and making him a 7 time tour winner. Though, I am confused that raceradio lumped LA, JU, and Basso into the same pile earlier. That is the first time that has happened. Hopefully you have not caused irreparable harm to rr.

3) Sometimes you get a good sale. The 99 tour winnner didn't have much money to start with but somehow he ended up with the best pills. Admittedly this doesn't work well with this money logic of winners/losers but you gotta believe in something.

4) People with the best doping programs money can buy, along with being the best responders, coincides with our personal dislike of a rider. Cancellara is not disliked so he is on the same program as everybody else.

Hopefully you will fall in line now. Thanks.

Your comments are getting dangerously close to implying that the dose-response relationship, which is well known to the medical community, may play a part. Fall into line yourself Sir.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Doc, have you been sneaking free meds from the cabinet again?

Please explain what you are talking about. I'm sure there is some logic here. Thanks.

Cancellara has been a Pro for almost 10 years, he should now be in a financial position to afford a top programme....(if he so wishes )

As for LA in '99, he had a house in Austin a Porsche and one of his victories in 93 or 94 netted him $1 million.

In the Puerto investigation they found that Ullrich and Basso were paying €70,000 while Heras, Botero, Sevilla and Mancebo were paying €50,000.

 

[ChrisE]

Cancellara has been a Pro for almost 10 years, he should now be in a financial position to afford a top programme....(if he so wishes )

As for LA in '99, he had a house in Austin a Porsche and one of his victories in 93 or 94 netted him $1 million.

In the Puerto investigation they found that Ullrich and Basso were paying €70,000 while Heras, Botero, Sevilla and Mancebo were paying €50,000.

Yes, but going back to SirLes' logic how did he become a top pro, if it takes the best PED's to become one? He didn't have the resources, according to your logic. You see, this is where the salary/PED correlation falls on it's face. At one time all of these guys were pack fodder.

LA in 99 had no more at his disposal than any other top rider in 99, and probably less. You know that, so stop counting on naivete with that argument.

What is your point about OP? Sounds like the Spaniards were getting an in country discount over those other Euros. If I was Mancebo, Botero, and Sevilla I would be ****ed that Heras was getting the better stuff at the same price.

 

[Race Radio]

And how did Ullrich get to be in a position where he could afford $100,000 doping programs? generous rich uncle? Lotto win? If success can only be achieved through a $100,000 program how do you get to afford it if you start on 30,000? Maybe they get all the new riders together at the start of training camp and say "we've got enough money to put one of you on the full program. Put your names in the hat and let's find the next superstar of cycling"

It doesn't change the fact that if Cancellara could afford the best so could Boonen and the rest of the main contenders. They got to that position because they are also the best.

With regards responding, evidently individuals do respond differently (which i don't think is mush of a surprise). What I could not see from the study is what the final values were. If my Vo2 max is already 88 would i get an increase to 104? (18%). My Vo2 max is only low 70s. If I was the best responder i would still be below a Greg Lemond.

Again. I restate that in the example i gave of Cancellara's recent performances, PED's were not the significant contributory factor (unless everyone else was clean) Your information , although interesting does not imo overturn that assumption.

The case of Ricco, Schumacher and Kohl in the 2008 tour is interesting.

Their success may have been because the rest of the peloton were being careful and keeping to certain limits (or clean) and they thought they could push the limits without fear of being caught and so drug use, as it had in the early 90s did become the overriding factor. Or that could all be total B*ll*cks. we will never know.

Ulrich was a bunch sprinter who was dropped in training camps as soon as the road tilted upwards. Within months of getting on the Telekom doping program he was on the Podium of the Tour. Armstrong, Riis, Chiapucci, Rominger, all had similar huge improvement.

You do not need a study to see that during a period of rampant EPO use some riders benefited more then others.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yes, but going back to SirLes' logic how did he become a top pro, if it takes the best PED's to become one? He didn't have the resources, according to your logic. You see, this is where the salary/PED correlation falls on it's face. At one time all of these guys were pack fodder.

LA in 99 had no more at his disposal than any other top rider in 99, and probably less. You know that, so stop counting on naivete with that argument.

What is your point about OP? Sounds like the Spaniards were getting an in country discount over those other Euros. If I was Mancebo, Botero, and Sevilla I would be ****ed that Heras was getting the better stuff at the same price.

The only one suggesting Lance was 'pack fodder' in his early years is you - he was a good solid Pro, who was very good at one day races.

Was LA winning the Tour de France when he started back in the early 90's? Did he show any sign of being a GT contender? Not until Ferrari and Bruyneel came along and he got 4th in Vuelta.

 

[ChrisE]

Ulrich was a bunch sprinter who was dropped in training camps as soon as the road tilted upwards. Within months of getting on the Telekom doping program he was on the Podium of the Tour. Armstrong, Riis, Chiapucci, Rominger, all had similar huge improvement.

You do not need a study to see that during a period of rampant EPO use some riders benefited more then others.

How can somebody getting dropped in training camps afford the best dope to become the JU we know? Why did Telecom waste time on this person?

 

[ChrisE]

The only one suggesting Lance was 'pack fodder' in his early years is you - he was a good solid Pro, who was very good at one day races.

Was LA winning the Tour de France when he started back in the early 90's? Did he show any sign of being a GT contender? Not until Ferrari and Btuyneel came along and he got 4th in Vuelta.

Bingo, now we are getting somewhere.

Is it possible he now had the same "help" as others and now the playing field was level, and he is just better?

 

[Race Radio]

Yes, but going back to SirLes' logic how did he become a top pro, if it takes the best PED's to become one? He didn't have the resources, according to your logic. You see, this is where the salary/PED correlation falls on it's face. At one time all of these guys were pack fodder.

LA in 99 had no more at his disposal than any other top rider in 99, and probably less. You know that, so stop counting on naivete with that argument.

What is your point about OP? Sounds like the Spaniards were getting an in country discount over those other Euros. If I was Mancebo, Botero, and Sevilla I would be ****ed that Heras was getting the better stuff at the same price.

Armstrong was a millionaire in 1999.

Regardless the bar was much lower in 1999. There was no need to transfuse and store blood as you could increase you Hct via a syringe. The success of a doping program came down to two things, how much risk was the rider willing to take and how good did his body respond to it.

 

[ChrisE]

Armstrong was a millionaire in 1999.

Regardless the bar was much lower in 1999. There was no need to transfuse and store blood as you could increase you Hct via a syringe. The success of a doping program came down to two things, how much risk was the rider willing to take and how good did his body respond to it.

BS, that is not what you have always said.

We discussed this before and argued over how much money he had in 99 to afford the best, which is why he won according to you. Now, that is conveniently dismissed and it is back to the responder argument.

If you guys could provide a flowchart it would be helpful. Please use big pictures and small words. Thanks.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Bingo, now we are getting somewhere.

Is it possible he now had the same "help" as others and now the playing field was level, and he is just better?

When you have a hematologist as your trainer and have them working exclusively for you is not what I would consider a level playing field.

 

[Race Radio]

Bingo, now we are getting somewhere.

Is it possible he now had the same "help" as others and now the playing field was level, and he is just better?

Yes, he responds better to Oxygen vector drugs.

 

[ChrisE]

Yes, he responds better to Oxygen vector drugs.

Please post a link to a controled study of LA vs other top cyclists, proving what you claim. Thanks.

 

[Race Radio]

BS, that is not what you have always said.

We discussed this before and argued over how much money he had in 99 to afford the best, which is why he won according to you. Now, that is conveniently dismissed and it is back to the responder argument.

If you guys could provide a flowchart it would be helpful. Please use big pictures and small words. Thanks.

All references to $100,000 doping programs have very clearly referred to recent methods, not 10 years ago.

It was not until the EPO test came into the sport that transfusions became a necessity. Add in WADA, the Biopassport, increased OOC testing and suddenly you have something that costs a lot more.

 

[Race Radio]

Please post a link to a controled study of LA vs other top cyclists, proving what you claim. Thanks.

No need, you can see it with your own eyes

Before EPO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb1EYB-VzVI

After EPO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiCIJ2JewPE&feature=fvw

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

It's bizarre that anyone would favor best responder and best medical advice explanations over the idea that certain riders simply use more PEDs. Especially when there is the 99 EPO data, where roughly 10% of the samples and 50% of the positives related to one rider....

These doping expert doctors are nothing more than unethical pseudo-scientist and con artists, who add little value for their clients IMO. How else would Kohl get such massive results from his DIY centrifuge efforts?

 

[Nick777]

You know what I like? I like a nice natural pair of C-cups. I think from now on, I will try to divert every doping thread to the topic of women's breasts. Would that make everyone happy?

It would make me happy.