Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

[pmcg76]

Speak to ammat. He will tell you what he thinks.
Ross has said repeatedly that we see seeing current rider in gc going as fast as known dopers.
He said last week it would be naive to think domestiques are doping while their own leaders are clean.
Ashenden said nothing has changed. It's all pr.
Landis same.
Joerg same.
Times from ammat and his watts per kilo show nothing has changed.

Quintana was doping.
Nibali was doping.
And ac was doping. All went as fast or faster that known dopers.

The same characters are In the sport.

Tucker has a level he deems almost certainly means doping. On the final week of a GT. Google it. The new generation are surpassing this.

Tucker also says he's very suspicious of these pr types who keep telling us certain things when the reality is that speeds are similar.

Frei has been told nothing has changed by people he knows.

Omerta is as bad as ever - we even have guys like Rogers welcomed back in - boogerd refusing to cooperate - martin saying it was a great day that impey got off.


But yes other than all this, things are much improved.

Ryder's Giro is oft cited. Let's examine Ryder - a guy who didn't tell all in his 'confession'...

Chris Horner last year - that's improvement - nothing from Frankie on that...kimmage was clearly exasperated with Frankie about froome.




And it wasn't cycling tips...it was Ross's own website.

Why should I need to speak to ammat when I can read what he says or are you saying he had a different view in private. I have spoken to peolpe in private and they have said things have improved so it works bothe ways.

You are now naming Quintana, Nibali and Contador when you were saying before it was the top in 10 who were outting out unbelievable figures.

Ross Tucker is not the definitive guide on anything, no more than Antoine Vayer is. Many other expers see drawing a line as the limit as totally ridiculous.

Comparing times is proof of nothing, context is everything, example, Herrera/Fignon in 87 and Fignon/Delgado in 89 have times for Alpe d'Huez that are faster than either of Contador's times in recent years and faster than some of Armtrongs attempts. Allowing for the improvements in technology, drafting etc, those times from the 80s would be closer to Froome etc last year, ergo those guys are also riding at a level that Tucker would consider impossible and that was before EPO/Blood doping.

They don't match the best times but they match the times of known EPO/Blood dopers.

 

[Digger]

Why should I need to speak to ammat when I can read what he says or are you saying he had a different view in private. I have spoken to peolpe in private and they have said things have improved so it works bothe ways.

You are now naming Quintana, Nibali and Contador when you were saying before it was the top in 10 who were outting out unbelievable figures.

Ross Tucker is not the definitive guide on anything, no more than Antoine Vayer is. Many other expers see drawing a line as the limit as totally ridiculous.

Comparing times is proof of nothing, context is everything, example, Herrera/Fignon in 87 and Fignon/Delgado in 89 have times for Alpe d'Huez that are faster than either of Contador's times in recent years and faster than some of Armtrongs attempts. Allowing for the improvements in technology, drafting etc, those times from the 80s would be closer to Froome etc last year, ergo those guys are also riding at a level that Tucker would consider impossible and that was before EPO/Blood doping.

They don't match the best times but they match the times of known EPO/Blood dopers.

Jesus........well if that's what we are dealing with here........

 

[pmcg76]

Jesus........well if that's what we are dealing with here........

Well if you want to claim there has been no change in bike weights, race tactics or even training techniques since the 1980s, go right ahead. Live in denial all you want. I am sure your hero Ross Tucker would disagree.

Instead of trying to throw some lame deflection, how about actually addressing the points I raised.

For the record I don't believe the times from the 80s would be near the current level but then Quintana's time for Alpe d'Huez is almost 2 mins slower than Armstong's best(non-TT) and over a minute slower than Landis. Whether Quintana is doped or not, I think he is one of the greatest climbers of all time yet you look and see guys like Levi, Menchov and Kloeden who all went faster up Alpe d'Huez.

Comparing times and watts can be useful, but without context it's pointless and that is where Tucker's analysis(and many others) is lacking.

 

[Benotti69]

Well if you want to claim there has been no change in bike weights, race tactics or even training techniques since the 1980s, go right ahead. Live in denial all you want. I am sure your hero Ross Tucker would disagree.

Instead of trying to throw some lame deflection, how about actually addressing the points I raised.

For the record I don't believe the times from the 80s would be near the current level but then Quintana's time for Alpe d'Huez is almost 2 mins slower than Armstong's best(non-TT) and over a minute slower than Landis. Whether Quintana is doped or not, I think he is one of the greatest climbers of all time yet you look and see guys like Levi, Menchov and Kloeden who all went faster up Alpe d'Huez.

Comparing times and watts can be useful, but without context it's pointless and that is where Tucker's analysis(and many others) is lacking.

For a guy who seems pretty convinced the sport is cleaner and GTs are won clean, you do spend a lot of time in the clinic!

You criticise others for making bold statements that you claim false and without context and ignore changes for bikes weights, yet you fail to produce those facts that assist your theory that the sport is at least as clean as the oh so clean 80s.......which we know weren't.

 

[thehog]

For the record I don't believe the times from the 80s would be near the current level but then Quintana's time for Alpe d'Huez is almost 2 mins slower than Armstong's best(non-TT) and over a minute slower than Landis. Whether Quintana is doped or not, I think he is one of the greatest climbers of all time yet you look and see guys like Levi, Menchov and Kloeden who all went faster up Alpe d'Huez.

Comparing times and watts can be useful, but without context it's pointless and that is where Tucker's analysis(and many others) is lacking.

Context is important. Alpe d'Huez gets trotted out by Vaughters as well but it's really the anomaly of climbs. It's so rarely climbed at the Tour or any other race in the last 10 years along with being at the back end of the Tour. In 2003 it was the first true mountain stage and was raced hard. In 2011 Evans just defended rather than raced and Contador attempted the impossible from 97km out.

In 2013 they rode over it twice, Froome supposedly bonked when the race was already won etc.

Comparing Quintana to Armstrong's non-TT 2001 time is a little stupid given the context. By all means do it but don't bet your house on it that's it indicative of doping or non-doping.

Quintana second accent (2013) was only 30secs slower than Mayo's 2003 time at stage 10 compared to stage 18.. Impressive.

Ventoux is a much better example due to frenquency etc.

 

[Digger]

Context is important. Alpe d'Huez gets trotted out by Vaughters as well but it's really the anomaly of climbs. It's so rarely climbed at the Tour or any other race in the last 10 years along with being at the back end of the Tour. In 2003 it was the first true mountain stage and was raced hard. In 2011 Evans just defended rather than raced and Contador attempted the impossible from 97km out.

In 2013 they rode over it twice, Froome supposedly bonked when the race was already won etc.

Comparing Quintana to Armstrong's non-TT 2001 time is a little stupid given the context. By all means do it but don't bet your house on it that's it indicative of doping or non-doping.

Quintana was only 30secs slower than Mayo's 2003 time at stage 10 compared to stage 18.. Impressive.

Ventoux is a much better example due to frenquency etc.

Yes but there was a tailwind Hog!

Although velo has since done away with that myth.

 

[thehog]

Yes but there was a tailwind Hog!

Although velo has since done away with that myth.

Selecting one datapoint, "wind direction" and using it to cancel all other data is not how statistical analysis is conducted.

Walsh attempts similar in his analysis of Froome on Ventoux (Inside Sky, The Climb). Walsh's suggests there are "too many" variables to conclude anything but chooses to select Mayo's ITT time for comparison which contradicts his first statment.

There is very important data in that climb upon Ventoux in 2013. If wind speed was truly an aid on that particular day then you might of seen a large majority of the field post times faster than previously achieved. But what we had was one rider in the fastest times in history bracket, one other just behind and then a large gulf to the remaining, this suggests that wind direction was not an aid as has been suggested.

From there it's hard to dismiss Ventoux 2013 as an "outlier". You'd never delete it or not consider it for analysis. That's not how statistics is conducted, no.

And to your point, Velo and Alex both put paid to a tailwind or otherwise providing significant benefit to the riders.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Ummmm, yeah, nah.

Nice words but he doped part of group that decided to dope and did so without his martial partners knowledge. He procured his own dope and was ultimately uncovered when she saw him playing the part of Richie Porte.

When he did admit he said he had no knowledge of Armstrong's doping.

Honourable but let's not pretend it's anymore than it was.

Lets just keep things in perspective shall we?

First bold: So what?

Second Bold: Not his job and people like you would have called it sour grapes. Beyond that, So What?

Third bold: Perspective is particularly dubious when attempting to rewrite history.

 

[Digger]

Hey frankie. Davide rebellin won today. New generation!

 

[gooner]

Hey frankie. Davide rebellin won today. New generation!

Spoken like a guy who was delighted to see it happen.

 

[Digger]

Spoken like a guy who was delighted to see it happen.

For a guy who holds me in such disdain, and you are entitled to, you do check my twitter aloT. And even tried following me.
And I I don't follow jv or check his twitter.

 

[elizab]

You should let go of your bitterness and try to view things as they are.

Frankie doped on his own, stopped on his own, ran himself out of a contract on his own and confessed on his own. Not by legal pressure, not by pending lawsuits and not by Travis.

If you were vying for a TdF spot on a pro tour team in 1999/2000 and were aced out by the dopers then at least you have grounds to ***** about Frankie. If not then feel free to stop your whining. It's unbecoming.

When he did admit he said he had no knowledge of Armstrong's doping.

Honourable but let's not pretend it's anymore than it was.

Lets just keep things in perspective shall we?

Hog, I'm figuring from my last round with you that people take whatever you write with a grain of salt.
The fact remains: Frankie will say on the stand facing perjury that he never saw lance inject himself with something he knew was indubitably a PED. Frankie never saw the transfusions because he was never part of the see-Ferrari-make-millions-dope-to-the-gills buddies.
His affidavit for the usada report states his knowledge of lance's doping adding to the extent that he knew it - which is far different than the people who partook in it with lance - about slew of pills lance was bragging he would take during a race.
Let's just keep things in perspective, shall we?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Hog,
Let's just keep things in perspective, shall we?

Good post.

Why do you think people are a bit upset by Frankies recent interview?

 

[thehog]

Good post.

Why do you think people are a bit upset by Frankies recent interview?

I don't think the issue is personal to Frankie. It's more generally speaking from those who have direct experience with doping and understand the gains that can made and believe the sport has (for the most part) cleaned up its act.

It might be true but when the reasons given to why it's become better are somewhat flimsy then frustration occurs. Vaughters et al. often provide reasons but then dont want to release data that could really assist because the fans wouldn't understand.

I don't mean to pick on Froome, but he has a lot of support from those who know what doping can do and who came from the USPS era. Just because it's not the same doesn't mesn these's not doping.

I have tremendous respect for Frankie. He put his name to it, others not until safe.

I don't think people are questioning the person but more the rational and the reasoning why they believe the sport has cleaned up.

I wouldn't read much more into than that.

 

[D-Queued]

Why is this not gaining any traction here?

Lance Armstrong being sued, company wants $500,000 returned

The fallout from Lance Armstrong’s doping confession is far from over. On Tuesday, the Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company and IMA Financial Group filed a lawsuit in Travis County seeking to recover bonuses they paid to Armstrong.

Fireman's Fund ain't SCA Promotions. Whole different league.

Because everyone it too busy smearing Frankie

Good question.

And, ^ what he said.

One gem in pages and pages of off-topic nonsense. Yes, there is actually on-topic news.

I looked through the SCA contract exhibits from the original arbitration to see if Fireman's Fund was a co-insurer. It appears that they were not, and that this was a parallel insurance contract.

There is one reference within the original exhibits to Fireman's. That reference comes in an 1 August 2002 email from Terry Michelich to Mark Gorski of Tailwind. In that email, Terry notes,

"Lastly, just thought you would like to know confidentially that Fireman's Fund finished arbitration concerning the past debated sum and it appears that is all behind us at this point (depositions, etc.)"

There are no references to IMA Financial Group in the original exhibits.

Dave.

 

[Benotti69]

Good question.

And, ^ what he said.

One gem in pages and pages of off-topic nonsense. Yes, there is actually on-topic news.

I looked through the SCA contract exhibits from the original arbitration to see if Fireman's Fund was a co-insurer. It appears that they were not, and that this was a parallel insurance contract.

There is one reference within the original exhibits to Fireman's. That reference comes in an 1 August 2002 email from Terry Michelich to Mark Gorski of Tailwind. In that email, Terry notes,

"Lastly, just thought you would like to know confidentially that Fireman's Fund finished arbitration concerning the past debated sum and it appears that is all behind us at this point (depositions, etc.)"

There are no references to IMA Financial Group in the original exhibits.

Dave.

Armstrong better hope his house doesn't catch fire soon.......

 

[MarkvW]

Good question.

And, ^ what he said.

One gem in pages and pages of off-topic nonsense. Yes, there is actually on-topic news.

I looked through the SCA contract exhibits from the original arbitration to see if Fireman's Fund was a co-insurer. It appears that they were not, and that this was a parallel insurance contract.

There is one reference within the original exhibits to Fireman's. That reference comes in an 1 August 2002 email from Terry Michelich to Mark Gorski of Tailwind. In that email, Terry notes,

"Lastly, just thought you would like to know confidentially that Fireman's Fund finished arbitration concerning the past debated sum and it appears that is all behind us at this point (depositions, etc.)"

There are no references to IMA Financial Group in the original exhibits.

Dave.

Look like Firemen's may have done what SCA did, except without the media hoopla.

 

[Race Radio]

Good question.

And, ^ what he said.

One gem in pages and pages of off-topic nonsense. Yes, there is actually on-topic news.

I looked through the SCA contract exhibits from the original arbitration to see if Fireman's Fund was a co-insurer. It appears that they were not, and that this was a parallel insurance contract.

There is one reference within the original exhibits to Fireman's. That reference comes in an 1 August 2002 email from Terry Michelich to Mark Gorski of Tailwind. In that email, Terry notes,

"Lastly, just thought you would like to know confidentially that Fireman's Fund finished arbitration concerning the past debated sum and it appears that is all behind us at this point (depositions, etc.)"

There are no references to IMA Financial Group in the original exhibits.

Dave.

This is from the 1999 Tour. That was insured by Acceptance insurance. Perhaps Firemans was a re-insurer on for them?

 

[elizab]

re read the article

why they believe the sport has cleaned up.

I wouldn't read much more into than that.

I'm not sure English is your first language so let me clarify for you:

"...there will always be someone trying to buck the system..." means there will always be cheaters and dopers

"With the sport changing for the better..." meaning happening now not already happened.

"We have seen younger cyclists competing at the top level and I believe a lot of their success is due to the sport being cleaner." "er" connotates a comparative not absolute.

Hence, nothing at all in his piece says the sport has cleaned up i.e. that it is clean and all is well and good. Au contraire, it will forever have its cheats. Kinda like this forum where people will always and forever put "arms and legs" changing and distorting the truth despite the fact they can be proven wrong because it fits their agenda and makes them feel like they're right.

 

[Race Radio]

I'm not sure English is your first language so let me clarify for you:

"...there will always be someone trying to buck the system..." means there will always be cheaters and dopers

"With the sport changing for the better..." meaning happening now not already happened.

"We have seen younger cyclists competing at the top level and I believe a lot of their success is due to the sport being cleaner." "er" connotates a comparative not absolute.

Hence, nothing at all in his piece says the sport has cleaned up i.e. that it is clean and all is well and good. Au contraire, it will forever have its cheats. Kinda like this forum where people will always and forever put "arms and legs" changing and distorting the truth despite the fact they can be proven wrong because it fits their agenda and makes them feel like they're right.

Good post Boss.

 

[hrotha]

That's all good and well, Betsy, but I honestly don't see any signs of the sport changing for the better in the last ~3 years or so. Quite the contrary. Since 2011 or thereabouts, I get the feeling much of whatever previous progress had taken place has been undone.

 

[the sceptic]

I don't think the issue is personal to Frankie. It's more generally speaking from those who have direct experience with doping and understand the gains that can made and believe the sport has (for the most part) cleaned up its act.

It might be true but when the reasons given to why it's become better are somewhat flimsy then frustration occurs. Vaughters et al. often provide reasons but then dont want to release data that could really assist because the fans wouldn't understand.

I don't mean to pick on Froome, but he has a lot of support from those who know what doping can do and who came from the USPS era. Just because it's not the same doesn't mesn these's not doping.

I have tremendous respect for Frankie. He put his name to it, others not until safe.

I don't think people are questioning the person but more the rational and the reasoning why they believe the sport has cleaned up.

I wouldn't read much more into than that.

good post Hog. I respect Frankie for the way he stood up against Lance, but that doesnt mean his opinions should be above criticism. At least not for me.

I like to judge people by what they are doing and saying now, not by their past reputation.

The only ones getting personal here are the ones who are uncomfortable with the debate. I wonder why.

 

[Race Radio]

The only ones getting personal here are the ones who are uncomfortable with the debate. I wonder why.

True, The way some go after Frankie is clearly personal. Deliberate lying about what he wrote in order to twist it to fit a narrative.....odd. A very personal attack.

Did you get around to actually reading the article yet?

 

[elizab]

That's all good and well, Betsy, but I honestly don't see any signs of the sport changing for the better in the last ~3 years or so. Quite the contrary. Since 2011 or thereabouts, I get the feeling much of whatever previous progress had taken place has been undone.

I think the discussion is healthy. I don't follow the sport the way you guys do so my contribution is a bit limited. As long as facts aren't distorted civil dissent should always be welcome.

I don't agree with Frankie on everything either. Those are the times he's wrong and should be called out.

I really respect Travis but think he's dead wrong on Gatlin, for example.

Have a good rest of the evening.

M GO BLUE!!

 

[thehog]

good post Hog. I respect Frankie for the way he stood up against Lance, but that doesnt mean his opinions should be above criticism. At least not for me.

I like to judge people by what they are doing and saying now, not by their past reputation.

The only ones getting personal here are the ones who are uncomfortable with the debate. I wonder why.

Precisely.

I believe there is some confusion. The piece written by Frankie and published on Cyclingnews was his opinion. It was based on his experience from USPS, the reasoned decision and latter work within cycling.

For the most part as I stated it was a nice piece but was factually inaccurate in parts - i.e. the elimination of race radios etc.

Nevertheless it's an interesting topic and because it was published publicly the concepts presented would be discussed. That's a good thing, that in essence is what an OpEd piece is, a discussion piece.

The article provoked discussion not ridicule. One should be proud of that, it's a good thing.

We should not smother and shut down discussion. Let it flow, as right from wrong will bubble to the top eventually.. (as did with Armstrong).