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

[MonsterCyclist]

And you are 100% wrong.

Your original post:



Then you come back with this Michael Ashenden quote:



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...

Thanks, but I have no reason to believe Ashenden disputes an 8% improvement. It's just that he believes it came from taking EPO and not efficiancy.

This started because Dr Masarati implied that EPO did not work that much for LA - I'm paraphrasing, this is not a quote - until he met Ferrari. Then Ferrari turned him from an also-ran EPO taker to a tour winner. I'm saying if LA was already taking EPO, 8% on top of that, thanks to Ferrari, is very unlikely. We got bogged down on this due to Maserati demanding quotes and sources. You'll note another individual called me a liar as well without providing evidence.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Thanks, but I have no reason to believe Ashenden disputes an 8% improvement. It's just that he believes it came from taking EPO and not efficiancy.

Pity you didn' actually read the article you quoted, because that exactly what Ashenden says.

Hey maybe Ashdown or Ashton claims 8%?

This started because Dr Masarati implied that EPO did not work that much for LA - I'm paraphrasing, this is not a quote - until he met Ferrari. Then Ferrari turned him from an also-ran EPO taker to a tour winner. I'm saying if LA was already taking EPO, 8% on top of that, thanks to Ferrari, is very unlikely. We got bogged down on this due to Maserati demanding quotes and sources. You'll note another individual called me a liar as well without providing evidence.

I didn't imply EPO did not work - I stated my belief hat it would be unlikely that LA waited until his association with Ferrari in 95 before using EPO.

Which leads us back to the start, LA was not a potential GT winner until he teamed up with Ferrari.

 

[Big Doopie]

--edited by mod--

.... what people dont realize is that transformation began in 1996 when armstrong won like six stages of the tour de trump (or whatever it was called back then) destroying the field in TTs and mountain stages -- including beating rominger by over a minute in the ITT.

cancer only delayed the ferrari magic. after all we know that ferrari was concerned that he had given the fraud his cancer. the transformation had begun the day the fraud hooked up with ferrari.

 

[Neworld]

But he's been linked to other top riders since Armstrong retired the first time, Menchov, Pellizotti. They've done pretty well but ....

Monster, are you serious? Menchov. He NEVER had a dedicated, all doped up, team like Armstrong with unbridled liberty to be the man of his team.

To assume that all dopers dope evenly is a great error on your part. No one is saying that LA is an average cyclist. He's probably very good. But his factual average VO2 Max is just the beginning of his average traits. No add it a totally committed team, no sprinters, UCI payoffs, TdFs built around TTTs, and clearly uneven doping options (not everyone has access to autologous doping techniques) and average can ascend to winner pretty fast, IMO.

NW

 

[BroDeal]

Whoa, you go out for a five hour trail run and the thread goes to hell.

 

[Francois the Postman]

I am happy to roll it back a bit.

 

[MacRoadie]

I'm saying if LA was already taking EPO, 8% on top of that, thanks to Ferrari, is very unlikely.

The problem is this.

No one has ever said is was or wasn't possible, nor whether it was likely or not.

Ed Coyle, in a now-debunked analysis of Armstrong's improvement over time, came up with a formula that on its face seemed to support an assertion that Armstrong made an 8% improvement in performance solely through increases in efficiency.

Michael Ashenden simply doubted the likelihood that anyone could gain an 8% improvement in performance simply through improved efficiency.

You've taken the 8% Coyle efficiency improvement and crudely woven it into the improvements Armstrong gained through his association with Ferrari. The two are mutually exclusive. Coyle's analysis was developed purely as a tool to attempt to prove that Armstrong WASN'T doping, not that Michele Ferrari could get an additional 8% out of an already EPO doped rider.

 

[MacRoadie]

I am happy to roll it back a bit.

Thanks. That was getting a bit tiresome.

 

[Race Radio]

that would be about right. what people dont realize is that transformation began in 1996 when armstrong won like six stages of the tour de trump (or whatever it was called back then) destroying the field in TTs and mountain stages -- including beating rominger by over a minute in the ITT.

cancer only delayed the ferrari magic. after all we know that ferrari was concerned that he had given the fraud his cancer. the transformation had begun the day the fraud hooked up with ferrari.

1996 was a pivotal year. lance started with Ferrari in late 1995 and showed up to training camp looking like a linebacker. All part of the the Ferrari plan.

Muscle mass is key. One of the biggest problems with a high HCT is your body can deliver more O2 then you have muscles to absorb. Ferrari's focus was building muscle in the off season then dropping weight as low as possible while maintaining mass. This was the challenge every doping doctor focused on for 10 years.

It worked. Early 1996 Armstrong showed absurd improvement. No wonder Ferrari worried that he had set his formula a bit rich and accelerated the growth of Armstrong's cancer.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

The problem is this.

No one has ever said is was or wasn't possible, nor whether it was likely or not.

Ed Coyle, in a now-debunked analysis of Armstrong's improvement over time, came up with a formula that on its face seemed to support an assertion that Armstrong made an 8% improvement in performance solely through increases in efficiency.

Michael Ashenden simply doubted the likelihood that anyone could gain an 8% improvement in performance simply through improved efficiency.

You've taken the 8% Coyle efficiency improvement and crudely woven it into the improvements Armstrong gained through his association with Ferrari. The two are mutually exclusive. Coyle's analysis was developed purely as a tool to attempt to prove that Armstrong WASN'T doping, not that Michele Ferrari could get an additional 8% out of an already EPO doped rider.

Coyle's analysis was a flawed joke for which he had problems, as I understand it, with his university. He never did a muscle biopsy to prove his claimed result and failed miserably to establish a proper protocol for testing his subject. He had no control group.

 

[Smera1]

1996 was a pivotal year. lance started with Ferrari in late 1995 and showed up to training camp looking like a linebacker. All part of the the Ferrari plan.

Muscle mass is key. One of the biggest problems with a high HCT is your body can deliver more O2 then you have muscles to absorb. Ferrari's focus was building muscle in the off season then dropping weight as low as possible while maintaining mass. This was the challenge every doping doctor focused on for 10 years.

It worked. Early 1996 Armstrong showed absurd improvement. No wonder Ferrari worried that he had set his formula a bit rich and accelerated the growth of Armstrong's cancer.

Makes all sense. Thanks for pointing this up.

 

[Polish]

No wonder Ferrari worried that he had set his formula a bit rich and accelerated the growth of Armstrong's cancer.

Yes, it may have accelerated the horrific growth Lance's pre-existing cancer.

But Lance survived. He did not die.
He went on to win One Two Three Four Five Six Seven.
In A Row. Streak. Awesome.

Did Dr Ferarri help, make worse, or make no difference in Lance's survivorship?
Who knows.
It could have helped his survival. It could have made worse. Or maybe no difference.
Who knows.


But in hindsight Lance did the right thing.
He survived. He did not die.
He went on to win OneTwoThreeFourFiveSixSeven.
He had kids OneTwoThreeFourFive.
Of course he did the right thing.

Sure, he has given the haters major indigestion.
And Lance will go to hell according to many of them.

Hindsight is 20/20 though.
It is clear.
He did the right thing.

 

[Cal_Joe]

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.

...We all used to collectively share information...

Inquiring minds want to know - is there a difference between "sharing" and "making stuff up"?

By the way - from the forum rules...

12. Issuing claims of information or quotes without listing sources or links will result in warnings or infractions.

Maybe some posters should have "been long gone" awhile ago.

.. If there wasn't a statement being delivered on Tuesday....

It will be interesting to see if there is anything on Tuesday (by the way, I am assuming that you meant the next Tuesday on the calendar, not some random Tuesday within the next 8 months) - if not, will you return and post about what happened re your "prediction"?

 

[Race Radio]

Inquiring minds want to know - is there a difference between "sharing" and "making stuff up"?

Do you have an example....or are you just making stuff up?

 

[Velodude]

Coyle's analysis was a flawed joke for which he had problems, as I understand it, with his university. He never did a muscle biopsy to prove his claimed result and failed miserably to establish a proper protocol for testing his subject. He had no control group.

Coyle's science peers filed a complaint against him for scientific misconduct with his employer, the University of Texas who conceded the study contained "deficiencies". Issues also related to the timing of the tests, the equipment used and his controversial conclusion.

The erratic "tests" ranged irregularly from 1993 to 1999. I suspect they were informal tests and not relating to a premeditated study.

Lancie had problems in 2004 when the allegations of drug taking in "LA Confidentiel" were made public, Coyle allegedly took these tests out of his archives and rushed them through as an independent "study" through his university. Coyle travelled the country promoting his "study".

Armstrong paid Coyle as his expert witness at the SCA tribunal.

 

[Cal_Joe]

Do you have an example....or are you just making stuff up?

Geez, man. You cannot be serious about anyone not slamming TheHog's posts. The man is infamous for those, and infamous for being wrong 99% of the time. Even mods have slammed him for making stuff up.

I am truly stunned that you are defending his "prediction" posts based on his history.

If you want examples, search the forum for his posts - use the keywords "lance extradited" or "Drumroll".

Wow.

 

[Race Radio]

Geez, man. You cannot be serious about anyone not slamming TheHog's posts. The man is infamous for those, and infamous for being wrong 99% of the time. Even mods have slammed him for making stuff up.

I am truly stunned that you are defending his "prediction" posts based on his history.

If you want examples, search the forum for his posts - use the keywords "lance extradited" or "Drumroll".

Wow.

True, but his entertainment value makes up for it

 

[Cal_Joe]

True, but his entertainment value makes up for it

His entertainment value slid below the drachma value ages ago, but your post brings up another interesting point. If the top posters on this thread appear to jump on any supposed facts posted by someone they do not agree with, would it be appropriate for those same posters to question possibly dubious facts/predictions by someone who appears to hold the same values (of the top posters) regarding the person who is the topic of this thread?

 

[BroDeal]

His entertainment value slid below the drachma value ages ago, but your post brings up another interesting point. If the top posters on this thread appear to jump on any supposed facts posted by someone they do not agree with, would it be appropriate for those same posters to question possibly dubious facts/predictions by someone who appears to hold the same values (of the top posters) regarding the person who is the topic of this thread?

Keep swinging that handbag, girl.

(Props to RR)

If The Hog was not a member, we'd have to invent him. He is that good.

 

[Animal]

I think Polish is losing it.

He thinks he's a poet now.

He just capitalizes a load of cliches, bull**** and lies, formats them and posts.

Maybe it's even a bot doing it. You could easily just have a database of that garbage, and have a machine cobble it together and post it every few hours.

 

[Benotti69]

Yes, it may have accelerated the horrific growth Lance's pre-existing cancer.

But Lance survived. He did not die.
He went on to cheat One Two Three Four Five Six Seven.
In A Row. Streak. Awesome.


He went on to cheat OneTwoThreeFourFiveSixSeven.


He did the right thing, cheating

just added some direction

 

[Benotti69]

I think Polish is losing it.

He thinks he's a poet now.

He just capitalizes a load of cliches, bull**** and lies, formats them and posts.

Maybe it's even a bot doing it. You could easily just have a database of that garbage, and have a machine cobble it together and post it every few hours.

Guy lost it a long time ago when his hero came down to earth with a bang!

A bot wold have self destructed long time ago repeating that rubbish.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

His entertainment value slid below the drachma value ages ago, but your post brings up another interesting point. If the top posters on this thread appear to jump on any supposed facts posted by someone they do not agree with, would it be appropriate for those same posters to question possibly dubious facts/predictions by someone who appears to hold the same values (of the top posters) regarding the person who is the topic of this thread?

Why don't you address that to the "Top Posters' that you are referring to (because when you make blanket statements it seems that you are not to confident in your position).

There was a valid reason to "not agree" with BPC and question his "facts" - because as usual he was wrong.

And I do the exact same to other posters who make claims that I have never heard before or that I suspect are dubious or made up.

The only people who get upset with it are those who cannot back-up what they claim.

 

[Ferminal]

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...rget-Xterra-world-championship-in-Hawaii.aspx

Is this the news we were waiting for?

 

[thirteen]

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...rget-Xterra-world-championship-in-Hawaii.aspx

Is this the news we were waiting for?

lol! gorgeous course, though