IT'S OFFICIAL: Contador is Astana's leader

[Anonymous]

Looks like the patented Jan Ullrich strudel and sausages training plan. Someone needs to do a lot of long rides during June with nothing but a water bottle.

cyclist are notorius for bad abs.
but the boring lance basher evidently does't know this.

 

[Anonymous]

In a word: No.

Four years ago I had a kidney stone. A very bad one. Very bad. It was horrific and nightmarish. I was in so much excruciating pain I was curled up on the floor in the bathroom in agony, unable to control myself (use your imagination), and nearly passed out from the pain after urinating blood. This event lasted many hours, and doctors were able to do nothing for me. I thought I was going to die, and then wished I would have. Never before, and never since have I felt such pain.

This event absolutely, positively did NOT make me capable of tolerating more pain on the bike. No way.

oh, man.. TMI!!
just kidding.. i wouldn't wish that on anybody...no wait.. maybe... no not even him.
you made a good point

 

[Anonymous]

cyclist are notorius for bad abs.
but the boring lance basher evidently does't know this.

Cyclists who win GT's are notorious for being thin enough to disappear if they turn sideways. He is fat.

 

[BroDeal]

cyclist are notorius for bad abs.
but the boring lance basher evidently does't know this.

Gosh, you might want to look at his arms, shoulders, traps, hips, and everything else. The dude is freakin' huge, and that shot is from the last ITT.

 

[Anonymous]

and yet we all saw how devoted all worked for a struggling Armstron while Levi was left pretty much alone? There are more to come specially if Lance shows any improvement, Contador may be out, just like that.

it appears to me that concerning lance, or anything else for that matter, people tend to see what they want to see.

when horner was there, he was the main support for levi, afterward it went to lance and he was there. again, words out of levi's mouth say the stage where he lost his chance would have been worse if lance hadn't dragged him to the finish.

folks, sometime you see lance with teammates and he's just a guy with teammates.

 

[Anonymous]

Cyclists who win GT's are notorious for being thin enough to disappear if they turn sideways. He is fat.

he though he was being funny.
i took the bait.
so did you.
cycling does nothing for your abs. you see lot's of guys that are about as lean as the possibly can be and they still sag when bent over on the bike.
he's not fat.
he's within 5 pounds or less of his tdf weight.

 

[hulkgogan]

cyclist are notorius for bad abs.
but the boring lance basher evidently does't know this.

It's called belly breathing. There's a picture of Hampsten out there looking exactly the same. And dude was 90 lbs soaking wet.

 

[BroDeal]

he though he was being funny.
i took the bait.
so did you.
cycling does nothing for your abs. you see lot's of guys that are about as lean as the possibly can be and they still sag when bent over on the bike.
he's not fat.
he's within 5 pounds or less of his tdf weight.

Use your brain--if you have one--and look at the picture and think. Armstrong is massive.

 

[Anonymous]

Use your brain--if you have one--and look at the picture and think. Armstrong is massive.

you were serious?
guess i gave you too much credit. LMAO.

 

[Anonymous]

And in other news, cyclists everywhere are lining up to have one of their balls chopped off...

This sounds even less valid than the notorious Coyle study, which the New Scientist article references. The Coyle study concluded that in a sport drenched in dope, Armstrong's huge increase in performance did not come about from the most obvious reason, taking dope, but from a miraculous increase in muscle efficiency, which has never been seen before. It concluded this based on data which cannot be compared from year to year because the data was taken at different points in the season. The weight data was not even measured. It was reported by the subject, who has a history of lying about his weight.

The extract above is filled with misinformation. It attributes his performance gain to an increased facility for weight loss. From the SCA arbitration we know that Armstrong's weight loss was neglible. It was lies told to the public to explain his unexplainable increase in climbing ability.

The extract also suggests that Armstrong's performance increase was not due to drugs, but we know from retrospective testing that he was using drugs. He was using EPO. Later his team was using blood doping. Ignoring data and coming up with a fantastic hypothesis instead makes the entire research suspect. You might as well write a paper to explain why the sky is green with orange polka dots while steadfastly refusing to look out your office window.

The extract and the New Scientist article seem to say that an increase in endurance and recovery ability explains Armstrong's wins. Extra recovery ability does not explain the real reason for Armstrong's success at the Tour: A huge increase in power, which was evident even in the prologues of a TdF.

The new Scientist article also mentions Armstrong's unusually high VO2max, but does not mention that Armstrong's VO2max is a middling value when compared to other pros.

The study also does not appear to use any real data. It is all conjecture, which would make it even worse than Coyle's shoddy research methods.

thank you mister know it all for saving us from the disinformation campaigns of peer review scientific journals.

 

[Anonymous]

And from these statements everyone is reading that the leadership is clearly defined? Its one of the most muddied statements I've ever read, its says nothing to back anything up. Its called propaganda that is stated to confuse or make people think what they are assuming but there is no clear statement. Or am I just not seeing it?

muddied?

let me quote again the actual words that came out of his actual mouth.

"which leaves no doubt about his leadership during the next Tour de France. The goal is to win. There is talk of a duel between [Lance] Armstrong and Contador, but what there is is a duel between ourselves and others," said Bruyneel, who also confirmed, "Armstrong is not the team's second rider. With what we saw in the Giro, that [role] is for Levi [Leipheimer]."

it's about as clear as it could be when talking about events that have yet to unfold.

 

[elapid]

I'll have to support Brodeal here. Because papers are published in peer-reviewed journals does not make their findings or conclusions above reproach. When reading these papers, it is important to be critical of their methods and conclusions. Coyle's work is an excellent example of poor methods. His conclusions are based on erroneous and misleading calculations. If you didn't read what he was actually doing, you would swallow his conclusions hook, line and sinker. But if you critically read his paper, then you would realize it is all a bunch of BS. You really shouldn't take any information on face value, even peer-reviewed scientific papers.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I was in the hospital with a person in severe pain trying to pass a kidney stone. It seemed extremely painful. Then afterwords He left the hospital the next morning or so... That's not the kind of pain Lance experienced though.

All right, let me go into more graphic detail for you. After the two days of abdominal cramping and what I thought was first food poisoning or a UTI, I went through about 20 hours of agony as my stone ground it's way through my lower kidney, and through my left ureter where it lodged itself at the bottom, just above my bladder. This is when I could finally move and went to the hospital, saw a urologist and had a cat scan. It was determined that there was not full blockage through the ureter, so my choices were, after waiting a few days and getting vicodin (placebo to me), if it didn't pass fully on it's own, they could pluck it out, or I could try to tough it out until it did pass. After a discussion with my father in law about the time they plucked his out, there was NO WAY in hell I was going to let them do that after suffering through this trauma. So my stone sat there, lodged inside me. The good news is that after a day or so I wasn't urinating pink lemonade anymore, but if you think I wasn't in any pain, allow me to wish such a thing upon you. And this went on...

...for over four weeks, where I ebbed and flowed between dealing with it, and the mental nightmare of having them remove it. Then, and only then did the stone finally fully pass.

I'll state once again. This had NO impact what so ever on allowing me to suffer greater pain on the bike, or XC skiing, or running, or anything else. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Now, for a corollary to "long term pain". I'd have to wonder why if it's simply a matter of pain, that after being shot and losing so much blood, Greg Lemond, after he came back and in 1991 in his own words finally felt like his old self, finished 13th in the Tour, and couldn't even finish the 1992 Tour, with his career over at 31. You'd think after being in so much pain for that long, he would have crushed everyone. Or is it cancer, and only cancer that makes you able to tolerate more pain on the bike?

As to Armstrong's size, here is a photo of him taken this year at the team's Canary Islands facility:

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Here's a different comparison. Leipheimer in nearly the same position and angle as the TT photo of Lance.

And Levi isn't exactly a skinny.

Here's one of AC from the 2007 Tour:

Which of these three athletes look like they need to lose muscle weight to win the Tour?

 

[mambo#5]

As to Armstrong's size, here is a photo of him taken this year at the team's Canary Islands facility:

BS on the pic. He is working out of his garage in Austin in that pic. Look at the garage door rail on the right. I have seen the video on youtube where he shows his workout sessions prior to the comeback.

 

[Jasper]

That's more like a sprinters physique.

 

[Anonymous]

All right, let me go into more graphic detail for you. After the two days of abdominal cramping and what I thought was first food poisoning or a UTI, I went through about 20 hours of agony as my stone ground it's way through my lower kidney, and through my left ureter where it lodged itself at the bottom, just above my bladder. This is when I could finally move and went to the hospital, saw a urologist and had a cat scan. It was determined that there was not full blockage through the ureter, so my choices were, after waiting a few days and getting vicodin (placebo to me), if it didn't pass fully on it's own, they could pluck it out, or I could try to tough it out until it did pass. After a discussion with my father in law about the time they plucked his out, there was NO WAY in hell I was going to let them do that after suffering through this trauma. So my stone sat there, lodged inside me. The good news is that after a day or so I wasn't urinating pink lemonade anymore, but if you think I wasn't in any pain, allow me to wish such a thing upon you. And this went on...

...for over four weeks, where I ebbed and flowed between dealing with it, and the mental nightmare of having them remove it. Then, and only then did the stone finally fully pass.

I'll state once again. This had NO impact what so ever on allowing me to suffer greater pain on the bike, or XC skiing, or running, or anything else. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Now, for a corollary to "long term pain". I'd have to wonder why if it's simply a matter of pain, that after being shot and losing so much blood, Greg Lemond, after he came back and in 1991 in his own words finally felt like his old self, finished 13th in the Tour, and couldn't even finish the 1992 Tour, with his career over at 31. You'd think after being in so much pain for that long, he would have crushed everyone. Or is it cancer, and only cancer that makes you able to tolerate more pain on the bike?

As to Armstrong's size, here is a photo of him taken this year at the team's Canary Islands facility:

There's tissue paper in the trashcan beside every fanboy's computer today.....

 

[BikeCentric]

As to Armstrong's size, here is a photo of him taken this year at the team's Canary Islands facility:

Wow, I wonder how LA's upper arms grew 6 inches in circumference in 2 years? Remember, this is a man who has never ever, never in his LIFE touched PED's.

 

[Anonymous]

I'll have to support Brodeal here. Because papers are published in peer-reviewed journals does not make their findings or conclusions above reproach. When reading these papers, it is important to be critical of their methods and conclusions. Coyle's work is an excellent example of poor methods. His conclusions are based on erroneous and misleading calculations. If you didn't read what he was actually doing, you would swallow his conclusions hook, line and sinker. But if you critically read his paper, then you would realize it is all a bunch of BS. You really shouldn't take any information on face value, even peer-reviewed scientific papers.

guess you can't trust anything you read in the journal of applied physiology these days.

were now treading on sacred ground.

i believe the scientific method of investigation to be the only thing remotely capable of saving mankind from it's tenancies toward self-delusion.

i don't think anything is beyond reproach and no theory is valid if it can't withstand scrutiny.
i went out of my way to take science classes in college, including biochemistry and physics, so the language is not foreign to me but i admit i'm don't see the problems you mention. in places where i question, i tend to question my questions. in journals the peers are supposed to expose kinds of things you mention before they ever see the light of day are they not?
what i read seems consistent to me with other things i've read about the physiology of muscle cells.
i see a reference to C. J. Gore, M. J. Ashenden, K. Sharpe, and D. T. Martin, saying, "Delta efficiency calculation in Tour de France champion is wrong" but i can't get to the article or dr coyle's reply. is that what you mean? i even saw the equation they reference.

just so i'm clear. you think dr coyle got this article, with it's flawed methods and miscalulations past the peer review jury of a highly regarded science journal and that you have the expertise to critique it and declare it bs.

 

[Anonymous]

guess you can't trust anything you read in the journal of applied physiology these days.

were now treading on sacred ground.

i believe the scientific method of investigation to be the only thing remotely capable of saving mankind from it's tenancies toward self-delusion.

i don't think anything is beyond reproach and no theory is valid if it can't withstand scrutiny.
i went out of my way to take science classes in college, including biochemistry and physics, so the language is not foreign to me but i admit i'm don't see the problems you mention. in places where i question, i tend to question my questions. in journals the peers are supposed to expose kinds of things you mention before they ever see the light of day are they not?
what i read seems consistent to me with other things i've read about the physiology of muscle cells.
i see a reference to C. J. Gore, M. J. Ashenden, K. Sharpe, and D. T. Martin, saying, "Delta efficiency calculation in Tour de France champion is wrong" but i can't get to the article or dr coyle's reply. is that what you mean? i even saw the equation they reference.

just so i'm clear. you think dr coyle got this article, with it's flawed methods and miscalulations past the peer review jury of a highly regarded science journal and that you have the expertise to critique it and declare it bs.

In a word: Yes

Tell you what, for fairness on this question, read From Lance to Landis. You don't even have to be unbiased. Just read it and then make the same statement.

 

[Anonymous]

BS on the pic. He is working out of his garage in Austin in that pic. Look at the garage door rail on the right. I have seen the video on youtube where he shows his workout sessions prior to the comeback.

facts like that don't matter the them. the cyclingnews forum has become THE place where lance bashers meet.

 

[Anonymous]

BS on the pic. He is working out of his garage in Austin in that pic. Look at the garage door rail on the right. I have seen the video on youtube where he shows his workout sessions prior to the comeback.

...you watch his workout videos?

 

[Anonymous]

In a word: Yes

Tell you what, for fairness on this question, read From Lance to Landis. You don't even have to be unbiased. Just read it and then make the same statement.

no no.. oh god no... that wasn't a question to you.

 

[Anonymous]

...you watch his workout videos?

i guess the only question was WHICH child would make the obvious comeback.

 

[Anonymous]

i guess the only question was which child would make the obvious comeback.

and you won!!! Your mom will be sooooo proud!!!!