Is anyone else getting tired

[Race Radio]

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?

You have a point. It often comes down to how much the rider is willing to risk. This risk is reduced if you have the good guidance of a expert Doctor.

Your point about Kohl is valid. Add him to the list of riders who showed inordinate gains.

 

[patricknd]

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

videos are hardly scientific proof. there's a lot more to it than just "better responder".

 

[BroDeal]

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?

I have always been partial to the theory that certain riders have managed to stay ahead of the curve. Clearly in 1999 most riders decided that carrying EPO around with them during the race made them vulnerable to the police raids that were going on at that time, so they injected themselves before the race and did not use during the race. Armstrong's retested samples show that he used EPO throughout the Tour.

After that there were teams experimenting artificial hemoglobin. At some point top riders switched to transfusions. The book Armstrong's War makes it clear that Armstrong was always searching for "the sh!t that will kill them," something that was beyond what his rivals were using. It is reasonable to assume that Armstrong was a couple of years ahead of each major shift in doping technique.

It is interesting that once Ullrich established a relationship with Dr. Fuentes and began using transfusions in 2003 he had his best performance in years. Unfortunately he was sick for half of the 2004 Tour and crashed multiple times in 2005 Tour, so we never got to see how good he was during those two years. It is also interesting to look at the huge leap in performance that Basso, Vino, FLandis took after Armstrong retired.

 

[Polish]

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.
.

Winning the "Triple Crown" had a GROSS prize of $1 million.

If I recall correctly, after taxes (~50%), sharing with team
members, management, mechanics, mom etc - his NET was
less than $100k. Still not too shabby for a kid though.

 

[Race Radio]

Winning the "Triple Crown" had a GROSS prize of $1 million.

If I recall correctly, after taxes (~50%), sharing with team
members, management, mechanics, mom etc - his NET was
less than $100k. Still not too shabby for a kid though.

That was the story....the one told by the teammates and support staff was a bit different.

He had been making over $500,000 a year for 6 years. He was far from poor.

 

[Race Radio]

Winning the "Triple Crown" had a GROSS prize of $1 million.

If I recall correctly, after taxes (~50%), sharing with team
members, management, mechanics, mom etc - his NET was
less than $100k. Still not too shabby for a kid though.

Funny, his support staff and teammates tell a different story.

 

[BroDeal]

Don't forget the huge payment he got from Cofidis to end his contract.

 

[Hugh Januss]

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?

Please include photographic documentation.

 

[Joey_J]

Before EPO

RR - "You can see it with your own eyes"

This is probably a better indicator of greatness

Before EPO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXsOR5O5hb0

 

[Polish]

Don't forget the huge payment he got from Cofidis to end his contract.

Was the "Huge Payment" greater than his contract if honored?
Don't think so...

Funny, his support staff and teammates tell a different story.

Did his support staff and teammates receive nada?

Or just less than they thought they should considering "Lance Netted $1Mil"
If Lance ended up with less than $100k, I would think members of the support staff, teammates, etc would have received around $5k a pop.

If Mom got a house, cool.

 

[Nick777]

Was the "Huge Payment" greater than his contract if honored?
Don't think so...

Did his support staff and teammates receive nada?

Or just less than they thought they should considering "Lance Netted $1Mil"
If Lance ended up with less than $100k, I would think members of the support staff, teammates, etc would have received around $5k a pop.

If Mom got a house, cool.

I was under the impression that he kept it all for himself, though I may be wrong.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

I have always been partial to the theory that certain riders have managed to stay ahead of the curve... It is reasonable to assume that Armstrong was a couple of years ahead of each major shift in doping technique...

Possibly, but I still put these ideas into the hyper-user rather than hyper-responder category. Not sure it's safe to assume that any one individual could organize themselves to be a couple of years ahead of each shift in doping techniques. It's not as if the newest methods are published in the best medical journals or anything convenient like that. I suspect it's more that the snake oil salesmen are experimenting on their athlete guinea-pigs, and which doctor (pun intentional) hits on the next best thing has a component of luck.

...Clearly in 1999 most riders decided that carrying EPO around with them during the race made them vulnerable to the police raids that were going on at that time, so they injected themselves before the race and did not use during the race. Armstrong's retested samples show that he used EPO throughout the Tour....

That was the point of my previous post. If we also take a look at the 09 tour blood data, one possible interpretation of the difference in values between Wigans and LA would be that one rider blood doped more than the other during the tour. So again, I see quantity of doping (i.e. risk taking behavior) as the more dominant factor, although program quality and individual response to dope may also play a role.

... It is also interesting to look at the huge leap in performance that Basso, Vino, FLandis took after Armstrong retired.

Pardon my ignorance but huge leap compared with what? Previous position in the peloton or previous power numbers?

 

[BikeCentric]

The top tax bracket in the US is 35% so I don't see how the IRS is taking ~50% of Armstrong's race winnings. I hope they did though!

 

[BikeCentric]

Anyway folks, just to point out the obvious: this conversation is going in circles. We all know that drugs do affect the outcome of the results list in races but there is simply no way to measure how much they affect them; too many intangibles.

I guess the discussion could be a poll question: do you think drugs are the dominant facter affecting pro race results or not?

 

[PACONi]

Please include photographic documentation.

+1 ... or should that be +2?

 

[SirLes]

Anyway folks, just to point out the obvious: this conversation is going in circles. We all know that drugs do affect the outcome of the results list in races but there is simply no way to measure how much they affect them; too many intangibles.

I agree. It is more a matter of faith rather than anything else- which is perhaps why doping discussions can get as heated as religious ones!

(I was going to give a few more arguments for both sides but it wouldn't make any difference!)

Personally I believe that when I watch a race at the moment it's not the peds that decide the result. If I did I'd stop watching. I think many of the results from the past would also fit into that category.

But I know that there are many examples where peds did make all the difference and I am aware that in the future it could become clear that some current results are primarily the result of PED use and my assumptions were wrong.
History has taught us that.

Hopefully the bio passport is creating a situation where the % of results determind primarily by PEDs is greatly reduced. If it does then i think it can be considered a success. (of course to be a complete success it would need to create a situation where the rider who does not use PEDs can achieve equal success.)

I suppose an analysis could be made of every result from the last 100yrs and for the next few years to see if that is the case but I for one can't be bothered.

Instead I'm going to make an analysis of breasts to decide which size is best as it seems more fun.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Anyway folks, just to point out the obvious: this conversation is going in circles. We all know that drugs do affect the outcome of the results list in races but there is simply no way to measure how much they affect them; too many intangibles.

I guess the discussion could be a poll question: do you think drugs are the dominant facter affecting pro race results or not?

I agree too. There are far fewer examples where it's obvious that doping was the dominant factor which determined the result, than all these discussions about particular riders and races suggests. At least with this discussion it's the conversation that's circular, not the arguments.....

 

[JPM London]

I agree too. There are far fewer examples where it's obvious that doping was the dominant factor which determined the result, than all these discussions about particular riders and races suggests. At least with this discussion it's the conversation that's circular, not the arguments.....

Not helping me a bit here, still hopelessly preoccupied about breasts since somebody brought up that subject. Funnily enough nobody has so far mentioned PEDs and breasts in the same sentence... Any thoughts?

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Something about DHEA and titties was mentioned the other day, but I think that was about moobs, not much help sorry.

Edit: We are allowed to say titties on cycling news. I'm astonished.

 

[JPM London]

Something about DHEA and titties was mentioned the other day, but I think that was about moobs, not much help sorry.

I know. I just didn't wanna go there... Actually thought about stressing the reference to the female species of hooters to avoid the inevitable... Hu-hum.

 

[ianfra]

It is always good for his Holiness to stop by The Clinic and tell the unworthy how good he is. Your riding buddies must be getting a double effect from training. Not only do they have to deal with the rigors of the kilometers, they build up their mental toughness by enduring the presence of an insufferable pr!ck such as yourself.

I think this kind of insult reflects the intelligence of the poster and all the peeps who hold the same prejudiced view against pro riders. Well done for exposing yourself in this manner.

 

[ianfra]

"Off course he was" (post above) - again opinion written as fact.
Perhaps it would be better to say "I believe he was" or "In my personal view he was".
In my personal view he wasn't. I am entitled to hold that as a personal view. And I phrase it like that because there is no evidence, and I actually don't give a stuffed monkey as to whether you disagree with me or not because I have not written it as fact. Which is what most of you guys do.
Let me tell you that Human Rights Organisations such as Amnesty International hold well-researched files on abuses around the globe but they still refer to these case as "allegations" or "it has been reported that ...." This is what gives them credibility.
However all the rotweilers on this thread and on this forum all seem to have access to knowledge denied to others and they also all seem to hold a monopoly on the truth .... strange that! But they let themselves down and have no credibility whatsoever.

 

[BroDeal]

I think this kind of insult reflects the intelligence of the poster and all the peeps who hold the same prejudiced view against pro riders. Well done for exposing yourself in this manner.

To a man of very modest intelligence such as yourself who is unable to connect the dots it might appear to be prejudice. To those of us who can gather the available evidence, think for ourselves, and form the obvious conclusion it is realism.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

"Off course he was" (post above) - again opinion written as fact.
Perhaps it would be better to say "I believe he was" or "In my personal view he was".
In my personal view he wasn't. I am entitled to hold that as a personal view. And I phrase it like that because there is no evidence, and I actually don't give a stuffed monkey as to whether you disagree with me or not because I have not written it as fact. Which is what most of you guys do.
Let me tell you that Human Rights Organisations such as Amnesty International hold well-researched files on abuses around the globe but they still refer to these case as "allegations" or "it has been reported that ...." This is what gives them credibility.
However all the rotweilers on this thread and on this forum all seem to have access to knowledge denied to others and they also all seem to hold a monopoly on the truth .... strange that! But they let themselves down and have no credibility whatsoever.

I think you have a different personal definition of the word "evidence" than most people.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I agree. It is more a matter of faith rather than anything else- which is perhaps why doping discussions can get as heated as religious ones!

(I was going to give a few more arguments for both sides but it wouldn't make any difference!)

Personally I believe that when I watch a race at the moment it's not the peds that decide the result. If I did I'd stop watching. I think many of the results from the past would also fit into that category.

But I know that there are many examples where peds did make all the difference and I am aware that in the future it could become clear that some current results are primarily the result of PED use and my assumptions were wrong.
History has taught us that.

Hopefully the bio passport is creating a situation where the % of results determind primarily by PEDs is greatly reduced. If it does then i think it can be considered a success. (of course to be a complete success it would need to create a situation where the rider who does not use PEDs can achieve equal success.)

I suppose an analysis could be made of every result from the last 100yrs and for the next few years to see if that is the case but I for one can't be bothered.

Instead I'm going to make an analysis of breasts to decide which size is best as it seems more fun.

Excellent post - but I would draw a parallel to the highlighted line above.

ALL breasts have a positive effect, when handled correctly.
But I believe different sizes have a different effect for different users, some prefer playing with small doses, some prefer to play with large doses.