Official Lance Armstrong Thread **READ POST #1 BEFORE POSTING**

[python]

....its "arrival" to suit their agenda.

Yes, this has all been covered many times but the inconsistency of the hater crowd always makes me chuckle.

once again, i'm suggesting that the complicated history of epo arrival and greg lemond relevance are the subject of the dozens of the existing threads.


next time it WILL come up, i will file a formal complaint and let the chips fall where they may...i'm really tired of the flaming and baiting that has been the feature of certain posters for so long.

 

[ChrisE]

You are pretty bored this afternoon, no? Is MonsterC you or is it BPC?

Not really, I'm watching the Texans and drinking beer. I am also washing clothes, which is slightly more intellectually challenging than arguing with you guys about when EPO arrived and who beneffited or got screwed by it.

I am not Monster Cyclist.

 

[python]

Not really, I'm watching the Texans and drinking beer. I am also washing clothes, which is slightly more intellectually challenging than arguing with you guys about when EPO arrived and who beneffited or got screwed by it.

I am not Monster Cyclist.

'we like our credibility'

 

[Race Radio]

So it was a gist of what he said? Your gist of what he said, right?
That is why I request links from you.


Really?
Since you are so careful, then you might tell me who is "Michael Ashdown"?

You don't know Michael Ashdown? He is the patron saint of Trolls and invented info. It appears we have one of his disciples here for the 200th time.

 

[Smera1]

You don't know Michael Ashdown? He is the patron saint of Trolls and invented info. It appears we have one of his disciples here for the 200th time.

Yes, and is the twin brother of Michael Ashup

 

[MonsterCyclist]

So it was a gist of what he said? Your gist of what he said, right?
That is why I request links from you.

No, it's precisely what he said in the longer interview - mechanics sn1gging as they drove past, as he came in alone, which you have now watched. Apology accepted. The gist of not being able to stand the pace was made clear from the shorter youtube link. Read more carefully.

Really?
Since you are so careful, then you might tell me who is "Michael Ashdown"?

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. Requests for irrelevant links that are beside the point, and spelling someone's name wrong. If it's self deprecation then I appreciate that. It's good to laugh at ourselves. But you don't request links from Race Radio who makes assertions about EPO doping in 94, for instance, so it kinda looks hypocritical and trollish. Have you ever analyzed a supportive comment....?

 

[thehog]

once again, i'm suggesting that the complicated history of epo arrival and greg lemond relevance are the subject of the dozens of the existing threads.


next time it WILL come up, i will file a formal complaint and let the chips fall where they may...i'm really tired of the flaming and baiting that has been the feature of certain posters for so long.

I'm with you. I've lost total interest in this site. We all used to collectively share information and openly debate the topics at hand. Now not. Its pointless and its obvious the new tactic. If there wasn't a statement being delivered on Tuesday I would have been long gone.

 

[MonsterCyclist]

Its not a shock to me. RR etal are the ones that are confused and selectively announce its "arrival" to suit their agenda.

Yes, this has all been covered many times but the inconsistency of the hater crowd always makes me chuckle.

Race Radio started off by saying anyone who disagrees with him is a troll and this has all been gone through before, then provided no evidence to support his claim.

As I said before, if I was making a crazy, outside the box, type view that goes against conventional wisdom, their attitude would be a little easier to take. But I'm not and they know that. It's so obvious that the game is to vastly over exaggerate to make Armstrong look worse. I don't think that serves the cause very well. It makes them look bad.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No, it's precisely what he said in the longer interview - mechanics sn1gging as they drove past, as he came in alone, which you have now watched. Apology accepted. The gist of not being able to stand the pace was made clear from the shorter youtube link. Read more carefully.

No idea what mechanics have to do with it - just to remind you of what you said:

The man himself said he could no longer keep up with the peloton.

....... so did he say it or is it your gist of what he said?

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. Requests for irrelevant links that are beside the point, and spelling someone's name wrong. If it's self deprecation then I appreciate that. It's good to laugh at ourselves. But you don't request links from Race Radio who makes assertions about EPO doping in 94, for instance, so it kinda looks hypocritical and trollish. Have you ever analyzed a supportive comment....?

You said you were very careful - so where is it that he claimed an 8% increase, or is that made up to?

As for RR, unlike you he has proved himself reliable and much of what he asserts I know is true as I have read it too.

 

[mewmewmew13]

I'm with you. I've lost total interest in this site. We all used to collectively share information and openly debate the topics at hand. Now not. Its pointless and its obvious the new tactic. If there wasn't a statement being delivered on Tuesday I would have been long gone.

the sad thing is the baiting and flaming is having the desired results. I am sad at the loss of intellectual and earnest sharing that was the norm but I refuse to disappear because of the antics of a few.

I still get some great insight and updates on here...

 

[Big Doopie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9u3AQNI9FI

i had watched the whole thing before, but this clip really sums it up completely, tx.

 

[MonsterCyclist]

No idea what mechanics have to do with it - just to remind you of what you said:
....... so did he say it or is it your gist of what he said?

You know that he said it. You watched it, didn't you? And yes it is to do with mechanics as mechanics are part of the bit where he says he came in after the peloton.

This is monumental trolling. You know the point is LeMond badly struggled due trying to race with EPO riders and finished way down on the level he should have done. That is the point.

You said you were very careful - so where is it that he claimed an 8% increase, or is that made up to?

FFS. You now want me to dig out the Michael Ashton iview where he talks about an 8% improvement.

Part of talking with fellow cycling fans, in a doping forum, is that they will know some basics about LeMond and the Michael Ashton interview that's repeatedly recited. Sorry, I apologize. It's clear I made a mistake thinking you would already know this - I presumed you knew the basics and wouldn't send me around the internet to back up basic facts as a diversion from the subject.

As for RR, unlike you he has proved himself reliable and much of what he asserts I know is true as I have read it too.

No. You give RR a pass because he agrees with you about your religious theory. Clearly you think anything goes as long as it's supportive.

Update: 8%

Michael Ashton:

I guess I need to put it in a little bit of context. Muscle efficiency is sort of like a holy grail in physiology. To put it in context, a 1% improvement in efficiency has been calculated with various modeling techniques to give you about a one minute improvement in a 40k time trial. So an 8% improvement in efficiency is simply unheard of. It has never been measured before, and so naturally, when Ed Coyle published a paper reporting that, there was an enormous amount of interest.

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

Thank you.

 

[MonsterCyclist]

i had watched the whole thing before, but this clip really sums it up completely, tx.

Cheers.

_______

 

[MacRoadie]

FFS. You now want me to dig out the Michael Ashton iview where he talks about an 8% improvement.

Michael Ashdown, Michael Ashton, Ashton Kutcher...

 

[ChrisE]

the sad thing is the baiting and flaming is having the desired results. I am sad at the loss of intellectual and earnest sharing that was the norm but I refuse to disappear because of the antics of a few.

I still get some great insight and updates on here...

Translation: This place blows when the meanies point out prejudices and hypocrisy.

 

[Francois the Postman]

-- edited post --

As per our forum policy regarding one particular disruptor: all upheaval caused, and off-topic fall-out, are removed from this thread and forum. In this case, many posts fell under this header.

 

[MonsterCyclist]

Michael Ashdown, Michael Ashton, Ashton Kutcher...

He..he. My dyslexic brain plays tricks on me. He's not exactly a household name anyway. I've updated the post to include the 8% quote. There can be no complaints on substance.

 

[Race Radio]

If a poster who has been banned over 200 times continues to come back and post the same garbage, bait the same posters, post the same lies continues to do so we are not allow to use the word that best describes him.

How about herpes? Can we say the forum herpes has returned? Short bus reference are also apt, like "look who the short bus just dropped off"

 

[Dr. Maserati]

He..he. My dyslexic brain plays tricks on me. He's not exactly a household name anyway. I've updated the post to include the 8% quote. There can be no complaints on substance.

Great - since you found the piece you might want to find where it is that Asheden said what you claim he said - here is a reminder:

....

The 8% figure is what Michael Ashdown gives for Lance improvement. I propose that it's very unlikely that a rider already taking EPO would see an 8% improvement in performance all because of some magical doping doctor.

.....

 

[mewmewmew13]

Translation: This place blows when the meanies point out prejudices and hypocrisy.

don't put words in my mouth

you're trying to stir it up...pfff

 

[MonsterCyclist]

Great - since you found the piece you might want to find where it is that Asheden said what you claim he said - here is a reminder:

Yes?

Let me think. You're going to say Asheden didn't provide that figure, it's from Coyle. But I don't think Ashenden disputes the figure - nobody does - it's just that he believes it was an improvement from doping.

 

[MacRoadie]

He..he. My dyslexic brain plays tricks on me. He's not exactly a household name anyway. I've updated the post to include the 8% quote. There can be no complaints on substance.

And you are 100% wrong.

Your original post:

The 8% figure is what Michael Ashdown gives for Lance improvement. I propose that it's very unlikely that a rider already taking EPO would see an 8% improvement in performance all because of some magical doping doctor.

Then you come back with this Michael Ashenden quote:

I guess I need to put it in a little bit of context. Muscle efficiency is sort of like a holy grail in physiology. To put it in context, a 1% improvement in efficiency has been calculated with various modeling techniques to give you about a one minute improvement in a 40k time trial. So an 8% improvement in efficiency is simply unheard of. It has never been measured before, and so naturally, when Ed Coyle published a paper reporting that, there was an enormous amount of interest.

In which Ashenden REFUTES the Ed Coyle claim that Armstrong was able to make an 8% improvement in efficiancy.

Ashenden NEVER said Armstrong improved 8%, Coyle did. Ashenden says the exact opposite: that 8% is impossible.

Nope, no complaints on substance. Must be the dyslexia...

 

[MonsterCyclist]

Just received this hateful unsolicited PM from user Radio Radio. It has been reported. Clearly this individual believes they are above the rules.

Are you sure it is Dyslexia?

It could be syphilis. Supposed to rot your brain. You really should get that checked out.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yes?

Let me think. You're going to say Asheden didn't provide that figure, it's from Coyle. But I don't think Ashenden disputes the figure - nobody does - it's just that he believes it was an improvement from doping.

Yes, thats pretty much what I was going to say - and I was going to add that you were giving lessons on 'sensibility' and knowing the 'basics'.

And of course, Ashenden does indeed dispute the 8%:

And so when you report that not only has it changed, it changed by 8%, then obviously that seems a very unusual finding. As scientists, the first thing you want to do is say, "I want to read the paper, I want to satisfy myself with the methodology that he used, because, gee, this seems like a strange result."

 

[MacRoadie]

Yes?

Let me think. You're going to say Asheden didn't provide that figure, it's from Coyle. But I don't think Ashenden disputes the figure - nobody does - it's just that he believes it was an improvement from doping.

No, Ashenden simply says (in the quote you so kindly provide), that "an 8% improvement in efficiency is simply unheard of".

Nope, definitely not disputing 8%.