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

[MonsterCyclist]

Well you could certainly help the highlighted if you provided some of your "hard logical facts" - but I have never seen you produce any.


Nah, you're an old sockpuppet

I didn't say I was using hard logical facts. It's a misquote. I said you can look at these events in different ways to fit grander narratives. I do understand this. But on the face of it, the ideas that a rider who doesn't take EPO gets dropped by riders who do take EPO, but then does really well after taking EPO, is not completely irrational. Yet some here treat the idea like it is, then invent theories of their own about a doping doctor being able to boost a rider who was ALREADY taking EPO, by 8%! That doesn't seem logical at all. So it's not as though I'm being a kook here with some whacky crazy theory and you guys have some incredibly rational theory, so stop making out this is how it is!

Bascially you don't like the guy for the other things he has done so want to make everything look as bad as possible for him. That's your reasoning. My reasoning is more nuanced and recognizes reality is not black and white. Somebody can cheat but still be a great rider of their era; somebody can be an @sshole to individuals but have another part of their character that wants to do good for charity etc. This isn't a movie with good guys and bad guys.

 

[MonsterCyclist]

LeMond finished 7th in 91 and he did not ride 93, so there can be no comparison.

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

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Zero inconstancy.

Most who have followed the sport for years know that EPO was not widespread in 91, 92, even 93. The few who had access to it saw huge benefits and were suddenly at the head of the field. Clean Riders who were on the podium were suddenly 10th. This had little effect on riders like Armstrong who could not even finish the race.

Ferrari developed innovative doping programs that combined not only the oxygen carrying capabilities of EPO but also the ergogenic capabilities of hormones and steroids. The sudden domination of Gweiis show what access to this doping program could do.

I have not seen anyone say that it was only EPO that made Armstrong win Tours after not being able to finish them. It is clear that he responded very well to Ferrari's doping schedule.

Before some fool starts saying it was all hard work and intervals remember what Virenque said

Wow -I assumed those nice people who made EPO would have gone round and given every single rider the exact same amount of their product at exactly the same time and all told sat down and examined them individually to see what had the best effect for them.

Maybe that's why - and this may sound crazy, some riders sought out a hematologist.

 

[python]

Just in time for the charges BPC emerges with another ip address

could be wrong but i think it's another of our 'old acquaintances' with the moderating history none but second to bpc's

 

[Polish]

Ok then - he's is the greatest tax cheater and doping cyclist of his era.

You made that up right?
Do not have a link or backup for that do you.
Invented.

I hate when posters just invent "facts" to smear.
Why do that?
Violates the Integrity of The Clinic.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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

Keep up with the Peloton, or the EPO leaders?
That remark was made in 1994.

Perhaps you could provide a link to clear up the confusion.

 

[MonsterCyclist]

Zero inconstancy.

Most who have followed the sport for years know that EPO was not widespread in 91, 92, even 93. The few who had access to it saw huge benefits and were suddenly at the head of the field. Clean Riders who were on the podium were suddenly 10th. This had little effect on riders like Armstrong who could not even finish the race.

Ferrari developed innovative doping programs that combined not only the oxygen carrying capabilities of EPO but also the ergogenic capabilities of hormones and steroids. The sudden domination of Gweiis show what access to this doping program could do.

I have not seen anyone say that it was only EPO that made Armstrong win Tours after not being able to finish them. It is clear that he responded very well to Ferrari's doping schedule.

Before some fool starts saying it was all hard work and intervals remember what Virenque said

Ferrari did not invent EPO. LOL. Armstrong dominated after EPO had become commonplace, after the 50% rule, and with a hematocrit in the low 40s for many of his wins. Doped for sure, but not doped out of his tree like riders in the early to mid 90s. Plenty of doctors had caught on to blood boosting - riders themselves knew how to use the drug pretty effectively. Ask Landis who said he didn't need Ferrari and took the same amount of dope every tour apart from his first - three 500ml blood transfusions and a bit of HGH (or testosterone?). It's actually a fairly simple process.

Sometimes people get carried away with this Ferrari nonsense. Sure he was first to the party with the techniques in the early 90s and was great insurance against doping controls, but it doesn't take long for methods to become commonplace. None of the other people he helped won seven tours.

 

[Race Radio]

Wow -I assumed those nice people who made EPO would have gone round and given every single rider the exact same amount of their product at exactly the same time and all told sat down and examined them individually to see what had the best effect for them.

Maybe that's why - and this may sound crazy, some riders sought out a hematologist.

Of course, they were handing out free samples at the sign in. You see the guys at Amgen are all about the Level Playing field.

Of course it was not only EPO and Ferrari that made Armstrong a champion, it was also paying off the UCI to get advanced notice of "Surprise' Testing. Also helps when his manager, Bill Stapleton, sat on the board of the IOC Ethics committee.

It is clear what the effects of EPO were on lance. He went from being dropped on climbs to the podium of LBL.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I didn't say I was using hard logical facts. It's a misquote. I said you can look at these events in different ways to fit grander narratives. I do understand this. But on the face of it, the ideas that a rider who doesn't take EPO gets dropped by riders who do take EPO, but then does really well after taking EPO, is not completely irrational. Yet some here treat the idea like it is, then invent theories of their own about a doping doctor being able to boost a rider who was ALREADY taking EPO, by 8%! That doesn't seem logical at all. So it's not as though I'm being a kook here with some whacky crazy theory and you guys have some incredibly rational theory, so stop making out this is how it is!

Bascially you don't like the guy for the other things he has done so want to make everything look as bad as possible for him. That's your reasoning. My reasoning is more nuanced and recognizes reality is not black and white. Somebody can cheat but still be a great rider of their era; somebody can be an @sshole to individuals but have another part of their character that wants to do good for charity etc. This isn't a movie with good guys and bad guys.

The highlighted - who claimed that?

To the blue - ah, the old "you don't like him", I don't judge his ability on personality, I judge it on performance and as i have clearly showed in 93 his performance did not show that natural ability.

 

[MonsterCyclist]

Keep up with the Peloton, or the EPO leaders?
That remark was made in 1994.

Perhaps you could provide a link to clear up the confusion.

He talks about it here. In the longer version - I'm sure you've seen it - he talks about coming into the finish after the peloton, with cars going past with s******ing mechanics.

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

Now you can see what Lance was up against.

 

[Race Radio]

Troll Babble

Who said Ferrari invented EPO? The retesting of the 99 samples makes it clear that Armstrong was indeed "Doped out of his tree" He clearly took more risks then his competitors.

Who invented paying off the UCI? How many other riders are business partners with Verburggen? How many got advanced notice of testing? UCI funded cover up reports

We can all agree that the level playing field never existed.

 

[MonsterCyclist]

The highlighted - who claimed that?

To the blue - ah, the old "you don't like him", I don't judge his ability on personality, I judge it on performance and as i have clearly showed in 93 his performance did not show that natural ability.

Well, I showed you why I believe this is not the case. This is getting bit circular now, and I note we've begun to play the "where's the link", "when did I say that" (about something that's blimming obvious!) game, to try to 'win' that way.

Anyway, good discussion.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

He talks about it here. In the longer version - I'm sure you've seen it - he talks about coming into the finish after the peloton, with cars going past with s******ing mechanics.

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

Now you can see what Lance was up against.

I watched that clip - as I assumed it does not say what you suggested.

Well, I showed you why I believe this is not the case. This is getting bit circular now, and I note we've begun to play the "where's the link", "when did I say that" (about something that's blimming obvious!) game, to try to 'win' that way.

Anyway, good discussion.

You actualy haven't showed anything, who said anything about Ferrari and 8%??

Theres a very simple reason I request links from you - because you continually misquote and deliberately misinterpret things.

 

[ChrisE]

LOL where's the link?

http://youtu.be/Ug75diEyiA0

 

[ChrisE]

Just to clear all of this confusion up, can we establish the reason GL started getting his **** kicked? Was it EPO as he claims now or was it a disease that he claimed then?

If it was EPO then why was AH still able to compete, and why did he win only one GT with all of that natural talent prior to its introduction? Did it arrive in 90, 91, 93, or 95?

Finally, what does this have to do with LA?

 

[python]

Finally, what does this have to do with LA?

so why do you keep asking the questions that have nothing to do with the topic and for which you've been repeatedly getting in trouble ? flaming much ?

 

[Race Radio]

Just to clear all of this confusion up, can we establish the reason GL started getting his **** kicked? Was it EPO as he claims now or was it a disease that he claimed then?

If it was EPO then why was AH still able to compete, and why did he win only one GT with all of that natural talent prior to its introduction? Did it arrive in 90, 91, 93, or 95?

Finally, what does this have to do with LA?

Already discussed

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/search.php

 

[hrotha]

Just to clear all of this confusion up, can we establish the reason GL started getting his **** kicked? Was it EPO as he claims now or was it a disease that he claimed then?

If it was EPO then why was AH still able to compete, and why did he win only one GT with all of that natural talent prior to its introduction? Did it arrive in 90, 91, 93, or 95?

Here's a shock: EPO arrived some time before it became widespread.

In the early 90s it would be hard to win a GT if you weren't an early EPO user. By 1993-94 it had become so widespread a big portion of the peloton was on it. By 1995-96 its use was nearly universal.

 

[python]

Here's a shock: EPO arrived some time before it became widespread.

In the early 90s it would be hard to win a GT if you weren't an early EPO user. By 1993-94 it had become so widespread a big portion of the peloton was on it. By 1995-96 its use was nearly universal.

once again, can we relegate the history of epo arrival and greg lemond (who apparently is not a hero to some armstrong diehards like chrisE) to the appropriate dozens of threads that have already been covered ?

can we see the bait and the flame for what it was -- to derail the thread ?

 

[MonsterCyclist]

I watched that clip - as I assumed it does not say what you suggested.

The link I provided pretty much gives the gist of what I said about LeMond unable to keep up - lets not be petty about it. The entire talk is an hour long - I'm not sitting through an hour just to get you a quote that is not even important to the discussion. Here it is, you can watch it (surprised you've never seen it!)

http://fora.tv/2008/02/17/Ethics_Doping_and_the_Future_of_Cycling

You actualy haven't showed anything, who said anything about Ferrari and 8%??

Yes I have showed you something. I showed you my theory, which I think is less counter-intuitive than yours, but nevertheless there is no absolute way to determine the truth of our theories. They are theories about the events and the people involved and you have to take a judgment in this case.

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.

Theres a very simple reason I request links from you - because you continually misquote and deliberately misinterpret things.

This is incorrect. When you disagree with someone you over analyse what they say to the point of absurdity - a standard you don't hold for those that agree with you. I'm more careful than most people on this thread.

 

[ChrisE]

Here's a shock: EPO arrived some time before it became widespread.

In the early 90s it would be hard to win a GT if you weren't an early EPO user. By 1993-94 it had become so widespread a big portion of the peloton was on it. By 1995-96 its use was nearly universal.

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.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The link I provided pretty much gives the gist of what I said about LeMond unable to keep up - lets not be petty about it. The entire talk is an hour long - I'm not sitting through an hour just to get you a quote that is not even important to the discussion. Here it is, you can watch it (surprised you've never seen it!)

http://fora.tv/2008/02/17/Ethics_Doping_and_the_Future_of_Cycling

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

Yes I have showed you something. I showed you my theory, which I think is less counter-intuitive than yours, but nevertheless there is no absolute way to determine the truth of our theories. They are theories about the events and the people involved and you have to take a judgment in this case.

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.



This is incorrect. When you disagree with someone you over analyse what they say to the point of absurdity - a standard you don't hold for those that agree with you. I'm more careful than most people on this thread.

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

 

[Anonymous]

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.

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

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

I have never seen RR announce its arrival - can you show some examples? Because if he is so inconsistent he must have stated it many times - no need to quote them all, 3 or 4 examples will be fine, thanks.

 

[Velodude]

Ferrari did not invent EPO. LOL. Armstrong dominated after EPO had become commonplace, after the 50% rule, and with a hematocrit in the low 40s for many of his wins. Doped for sure, but not doped out of his tree like riders in the early to mid 90s. Plenty of doctors had caught on to blood boosting - riders themselves knew how to use the drug pretty effectively. Ask Landis who said he didn't need Ferrari and took the same amount of dope every tour apart from his first - three 500ml blood transfusions and a bit of HGH (or testosterone?). It's actually a fairly simple process.

Sometimes people get carried away with this Ferrari nonsense. Sure he was first to the party with the techniques in the early 90s and was great insurance against doping controls, but it doesn't take long for methods to become commonplace. None of the other people he helped won seven tours.

Armstrong dominated after EPO had become commonplace, after the 50% rule, and with a hematocrit in the low 40s for many of his wins.

So "many" of his wins were with a hct in the low 40's? So what about his other wins? High 40's? Link please.

Before the 1999 Tour start at a US Postal team meeting Bruyneel expressed the concern that all the team were too close to the 50% threshold. This was noted by the team's Belgian soigneur and corroborated by Johnathon Vaughters.

Teams knew that if over 50% the hct can be manipulated down as long as they knew in advance when testing was to take place. Someone forgot to inform Marco Pantini.

Armstrong carried on the ruse by falsely claiming hct can be raised cleanly and ethically by altitude training (CNN Larry King Live- August 2005) and sleeping in an altitude tent.