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!
blackcat said:test scores Dave?
Armstrong was a high-school drop out, does not even have a GED.
He had what??ebandit said:...lance had a pfysiological afvantage enabling him to trounce the opposition without even trying
..this was well proven by various tests
His pfysiological afvantage (sic) is he was a high responder to PEDs.ebandit said:...lance had a pfysiological afvantage enabling him to trounce the opposition without even trying...
Are we talking about the same guy?StyrbjornSterki said:His pfysiological afvantage (sic) is he was a high responder to PEDs.ebandit said:...lance had a pfysiological afvantage enabling him to trounce the opposition without even trying...
I don't know whether it has been ever established how well he would've performed had everyone been clean even when particularly Mike Ashenden and Greg LeMond seem to hold the position that he was naturally mediocre at best.StyrbjornSterki said:His pfysiological afvantage (sic) is he was a high responder to PEDs.
As far as I know, no peer review study or physiological project has released his Vo2max data and to be honest, I don't know whether there is anything but his word to back up the claim that his hematocrit never exceeded 45 % as he has claimed.Dear Greg Lemond, we all know by now how much your VO2max is, it's about the only scientific term you know in sport. And it's also probably the 1000th time you're saying how high your VO2max was in an interview.
And we know your VO2max because that's what you tell us it is. So it must be right, because Lemond says so.
Armstrong wasn't stupid: his foundation was a great PR move, and it would have been a great shield against suspicion had he played it BigMig, be the nice guy, not made enemies...but he couldn't help being a bully and a jerk, and in the end that wasn't smart. Froome learned that lesson: he's intelligent. LA wasn't.This Charming Man said:blackcat said:test scores Dave?
Armstrong was a high-school drop out, does not even have a GED.
Lance is incredibly intelligent.
This Charming Man said:Why hate on Armstrong. His PED programme was the same as many others of his contemporaries, plus those before him and after him.
He asked, in the thread about Armstrong's most public act of bullying and intimidation.This Charming Man said:Why hate on Armstrong. His PED programme was the same as many others of his contemporaries, plus those before him and after him.
Tonton said:Armstrong wasn't stupid: his foundation was a great PR move, and it would have been a great shield against suspicion had he played it BigMig, be the nice guy, not made enemies...but he couldn't help being a bully and a jerk, and in the end that wasn't smart. Froome learned that lesson: he's intelligent. LA wasn't.This Charming Man said:blackcat said:test scores Dave?
Armstrong was a high-school drop out, does not even have a GED.
Lance is incredibly intelligent.
WildspokeJoe said:Tonton said:Armstrong wasn't stupid: his foundation was a great PR move, and it would have been a great shield against suspicion had he played it BigMig, be the nice guy, not made enemies...but he couldn't help being a bully and a jerk, and in the end that wasn't smart. Froome learned that lesson: he's intelligent. LA wasn't.This Charming Man said:blackcat said:test scores Dave?
Armstrong was a high-school drop out, does not even have a GED.
Lance is incredibly intelligent.
Lance is a smart dude. He surrounded himself with smart people. The only reason he got caught was because federal investigators from the US government were brought in and flipped the other riders with the threat of jail time. If this had stayed inside the sport he would have gotten away with it.
The clinic has 5,000 topics and 500k posts. Anyone that thinks that doping is not entrenched in the sport and has gone away is the fool.
WildspokeJoe said:Tonton said:Armstrong wasn't stupid: his foundation was a great PR move, and it would have been a great shield against suspicion had he played it BigMig, be the nice guy, not made enemies...but he couldn't help being a bully and a jerk, and in the end that wasn't smart. Froome learned that lesson: he's intelligent. LA wasn't.This Charming Man said:blackcat said:test scores Dave?
Armstrong was a high-school drop out, does not even have a GED.
Lance is incredibly intelligent.
Lance is a smart dude. He surrounded himself with smart people. The only reason he got caught was because federal investigators from the US government were brought in and flipped the other riders with the threat of jail time. If this had stayed inside the sport he would have gotten away with it.
The clinic has 5,000 topics and 500k posts. Anyone that thinks that doping is not entrenched in the sport and has gone away is the fool.
Re: Lance
Lance is an obvious dumbass. Good bike rider though. Great responder to EPO.
Let's ignore the dehumanising aspect of your comment - your need to belittle him - but intelligence is not a prerequisite of cycling champions. Some, in fact, would consider it an impediement.I'd also say that what "achieved" wasn't based on high intelligence, he just has the right personality.
And there is absolutely zero evidence that Armstrong ever pulled off such a move. He may have later told others that the UCI's failure to spot his cancer in drug tests gave him a hold over Aigle, and he may have told others that he got a positive wiped, but all the evidence says is that one of his tests was in the grey area of the scale and so he didn't trip the thresholds. All the eveidence suggests is that what he said was bragging, not backed up by evidence. But people were willing to believe it was true.That huge sense of entitlement. Think of it, at the Tour de Suisse, he was "only" a two time TDF winner, there were still guys in the peloton more accomplished than him, yet he felt he felt entitled to call the UCI to cover up for his failed test. I believe some other riders just wouldn't pull off such move.
And the evidence for this is what? It's not him getting Emma O'Reilly to take stuff through customs for him.Rules didn't apply to him, not cos he was the best and most successful rider but rather cos he decided they wouldn't. He thought he had to right to do whatever he feels is right and just did what he wanted. Like the thing with him never getting speeding tickets or ordering the custom officers to let him pass without being checked.
I like to think the UCI ripped him off for a free toy.And there is absolutely zero evidence that Armstrong ever pulled off such a move. He may have later told others that the UCI's failure to spot his cancer in drug tests gave him a hold over Aigle, and he may have told others that he got a positive wiped, but all the evidence says is that one of his tests was in the grey area of the scale and so he didn't trip the thresholds. All the eveidence suggests is that what he said was bragging, not backed up by evidence. But people were willing to believe it was true.
And that is the other part of it. He's going around telling chumps like Floyd and Ty and JV that he had power over Verbruggen cause of the failure to spot his hCG score - and they believe him! - and yet he has to go and cut the UCI a couple of cheques, even has to be chased to issue one of them.I like to think the UCI ripped him off for a free toy.
Even USADA accepted this account in its "Reasoned Decision" this word-to-word at face value (p. 51). The problem is that whereas Conconi had done some research for the rHuEPO test (many scientist had, among then e.g. Björn Ekblom, Jim Stray-Gundersen...), Conconi had no input into the approach developed by the Châtenay-Malabry - scientists actually used by the testers.93. While Lance was in town [...] we went on a training ride together, and I asked Lance whether he thought the new EPO test works? He said that his sources told him that it works like a spectrum, and as long as you are in the grey area you do not need to worry about testing positive.
94. Lance then asked me, "Do you know who invented the EPO test?" I did not so Lance told me, "Conconi.", Lance said, "I have a couple of friends of Conconi who have told me how the test works".
JV talks about in-the-vein microdosing in his book, for the 2001 Dauphiné where he won the ITT (he had a panic attack that he'd missed the vein and would pop a positive). This was when he was in his second season at Crédit Agricole, so the knowledge clearly spread.Because Tyler Hamilton who left USPS in 2001 knew about in-the-vein microdosing, the method to beat the test was adapted likely pretty much after the introduction of the rHuEPO test and before Lance met the UCI lab people.
Let's ignore the dehumanising aspect of your comment - your need to belittle him - but intelligence is not a prerequisite of cycling champions. Some, in fact, would consider it an impediement.
And there is absolutely zero evidence that Armstrong ever pulled off such a move. He may have later told others that the UCI's failure to spot his cancer in drug tests gave him a hold over Aigle, and he may have told others that he got a positive wiped, but all the evidence says is that one of his tests was in the grey area of the scale and so he didn't trip the thresholds. All the eveidence suggests is that what he said was bragging, not backed up by evidence. But people were willing to believe it was true.
And the evidence for this is what? It's not him getting Emma O'Reilly to take stuff through customs for him.
You don't like the guy, we get it. He's not very likable. But FFS, cut the demonising.
You're just going to keep saying there was a positive test, aren't you, no matter how many times you're told there wasn't? Here's Saugy, from the link I already provided above, quoted from the Neue Züricher Zeitung:First of all, there was a positive test (Dr. Saugy)
They [the four suspect samples] were taken at four different stages [during the Tour de Suisse in June 2001], so I don't know whether they were from four different riders or all of the same athlete. But the tests were not covered up, and it is also not correct that they could have been interpreted as positive. They were suspect, and you wouldn't stand a chance at all with that sole argument in front of a court.
The Paris laboratory of Chatenay-Malabry fixed the criteria for a positive test result. An athlete was positive only if eighty percent of the signs typical for the use of synthetic EPO were found. [A suspect sample was one that] showed between seventy and eighty percent of the typical EPO parameters. That meant that the probability of doping was high. But because such a result can also be produced naturally, it was all about excluding false positives.
You're just going to keep saying there was a positive test, aren't you, no matter how many times you're told there wasn't? Here's Saugy, from the link I already provided above, quoted from the Neue Züricher Zeitung:
Wonderboy probably used some of his millions to get them removed from all media outlets.A simple "Armstrong Simeoni" search on YouTube used to yield numerous results. Now they're all gone. Hmm.
Umm, Tyler Hamilton/Flandis and Betsy/Frankie said he's(Wonderboy) had numerous positives. But let's not take the words of people who were around him daily as any sort of credible evidence, lol.You're just going to keep saying there was a positive test, aren't you, no matter how many times you're told there wasn't? Here's Saugy, from the link I already provided above, quoted from the Neue Züricher Zeitung:
Re: Simeoni/Armstrong Tour de France 2004 - stage 18 - video
Are we talking about the same guy?
The one I followed was tested more than any other athlete and never tested positive.