Sorry I forgot you are the unelected king of the clinic and I should run all my opinions by you before I postWow, you got all that from the Sundance summary of what it'll be like? Amazing!
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Sorry I forgot you are the unelected king of the clinic and I should run all my opinions by you before I postWow, you got all that from the Sundance summary of what it'll be like? Amazing!
ToucheSorry I forgot you are the unelected king of the clinic and I should run all my opinions by you before I post
Oh God, please don't, life's too short and there's so much more fun things I could be doing.I should run all my opinions by you before I post
Lifes also too short it seems to post anywhere except in the clinic which to me seems a bit odd for an avid cycling fanOh God, please don't, life's too short and there's so much more fun things I could be doing.
I'm just so amazed you were actually able to get all that from the Sundance summary. It's practically a compliment. You know, go you...
Awwwhhhh!!! So sweet! The "I love cycling more than you do" riposte. I love its mix of narcissism and insecurity. Go you.Lifes also too short it seems to post anywhere except in the clinic which to me seems a bit odd for an avid cycling fan
I love the irony...Awwwhhhh!!! So sweet! The "I love cycling more than you do" riposte. I love its mix of narcissism and insecurity. Go you.
Leaving aside the fact that the SCA-case exhibits (available on the Internet) have Coyle's presentation with Lance's three INSeason or pre-season Vo2Max figures of 6.0-6.2 l/min, blogger Alex Hutchinson has written about this new(ish) Swedish(ish)[sic] line of research about why a high Vo2Max guy shouldn't extrapolate Watt outputs of other people from his own Vo2Max data:in April 2001, at a conference I was present at, his former physician Ed Coyle revealed Armstrong's data; his thoracic capacity - 5.6 litres of oxygen, and especially his VO2 max. To me that was evidence that he had cheated.
...
When I raced, I had a VO2 max of 93, and I never developed more than 400 watts. Armstrong’s VO2 max, which Ed Coyle mistakenly revealed, was no more than 78. So, considering his weight - 73 kg, he could never produce 500 watts to ride up the Madonna as he said, or 475 watts on the climb of L'Alpe-d'Huez. With his VO2 max, he couldn't exceed 375 watts. To increase his performance by 30%, he had to dope. But did he achieve his performance only with doping? What doping did he use that others didn't? All I know is that there are 50-70 watts missing, which we don’t know the origin of. There is something that I still do not understand.
The phenomenon of super-high Vo2Max's with mediocrish results isn't even a totally new one or cycling-related, because perhaps the three highest Vo2Max figures of XC-skiers of the early-1970s were Sven-Åke Lundbäck (94 ml/min/kg), an unnamed Finn (92 ml/min/kg) and an unnamed American (88 ml/min/kg).The power output at 4 mmol·L-1 correlates well with mean power output 160 during a 40 km TT and this variable peaked at 5.6 W·kg-1 (428 W) during the last test before [Svendsen] became TT Junior world champion. His relative value is actually in line with values reported for top international cyclists, but still reasonably lower than the 6.1-6.2 W·kg-1 (and the estimated 6.4 W·kg-1) that has been reported in two cyclists with multiple Tour de France victories.
The power output at 4 mmol·L-1 correlates well with mean power output 160 during a 40 km TT and this variable peaked at 5.6 W·kg-1 (428 W) during the last test before [Svendsen] became TT Junior world champion. His relative value is actually in line with values reported for top international cyclists, but still reasonably lower than the 6.1-6.2 W·kg-1 (and the estimated 6.4 W·kg-1) that has been reported in two cyclists with multiple Tour de France victories.
I admire Lance's instincts on sustaining his relevancy and marketability. He was absolutely the last rider that assisted other riders. His strategy with USAC and subsequent pro teams was to quash competition's opportunities to compete on all levels; for opportunities, sponsorship or positive press.I am sure enjoying Lance's coverage of former classics. Also support him, on having cyclists stand up for themselves. Go Lance.
And the final take:More recent footage shows Armstrong receiving an award at a breast cancer benefit… put on by Babes for Boobs. The sparse crowd talks through his acceptance speech, and Armstrong leaves through the back door even though there were barely any reporters or fans at the small step-and-repeat when he arrived. Later, he talks to his son Luke’s football team at Rice University. After spouting a few motivational sentiments about working hard, he has to ask the head coach for the team’s motto and then forgets his son’s jersey number. Armstrong appears desperate for any sort of spotlight that comes with any sort of positive recognition, even if it’s clear these opportunities aren’t the same as what he had before.
The film itself ultimately suffers from a similar problem. Armstrong’s story is begging for further context, given how many athletes struggle after intense upbringings birth massive egos, but the more immediate issue how simple the ending feels. Anyone interested enough in Armstrong to watch three hours of “Lance” will be entertained and informed, perhaps they’ll even form fresh opinions on the figure, but he’s still just a guy. He’s not a villain or a hero. No one is only one or the other, so maybe we should stop pretending it’s attainable — or surprising.
ESPN loves this guy for some reason. Kinda funny, as neither have been relevant for years, so they're perfect for one another.
You "admire" a sociopathic, lying, cheater who did everything within his power to ruin others, all to hide his lies for over a decade? Lmao!I admire Lance's instincts on sustaining his relevancy and marketability. He was absolutely the last rider that assisted other riders. His strategy with USAC and subsequent pro teams was to quash competition's opportunities to compete on all levels; for opportunities, sponsorship or positive press.
He wants/needs to keep his voice out there for podcast promotion and minor league product endorsements. That riders need to stand up for themselves is real but needing an assist from this sports backwash is ironic. He never shared his toys. See Contador's comments earlier this week.
Sorry that you missed the sarcasm...your filter must be turned up to 11. You do understand that my post intended to point out the complete hypocrisy of his offering to "help" other riders. That's also why I used the "dead eyes" emoji to emphasize the ridiculous synergy between he and ESPN that you pointed out.You "admire" a sociopathic, lying, cheater who did everything within his power to ruin others, all to hide his lies for over a decade? Lmao!
Wonderboy loves.and needs fans like you, blind supporters who worship him regardless.
Sometimes sarcasm doesn't come off as originally intended.Sorry that you missed the sarcasm...your filter must be turned up to 11. You do understand that my post intended to point out the complete hypocrisy of his offering to "help" other riders. That's also why I used the "dead eyes" emoji to emphasize the ridiculous synergy between he and ESPN that you pointed out.
There is along history dealing with his involvement in racing and you can research my posts regarding. Go ahead....
more"Probably… 21," Armstrong replied after a long pause when asked at what age he started doping in a clip from the film released by ESPN.
It means that he would likely have already been doping before he became the 1993 road race world champion at the age of 21, as he turned 22 less than a month after that victory.
"There's a bunch of ways to define doping," Armstrong continued in the clip. "The easiest way to define it is 'breaking the rules'. So, were we getting injections of vitamins and other things like that at an earlier age? Yes. But they weren't illegal, so that… You know…"
"But did you know?" Armstrong was asked by the documentary's filmmaker, Marina Zenovich.
"Know what?" he replied.
"What was in them [the syringes]?"
"Of course. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Come on," Armstrong said. "I'm not one of those guys. I was always, 'Ooh – what do we have here?' I always asked, and I always knew, and I always made the decision on my own. Nobody said, 'Don't ask; this is what you're getting.'
"I never, ever would have gone for that. I educated myself on what was being given, and I chose to do it."
He's forgotten his Montgomery-Subaru days, it would appear.