The Official LANCE ARMSTRONG Thread 2010-2011

[patricknd]

Michael Ashenden explains all.

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

i know all that, but if he was doping before 99 what was the difference from 99 on? the consensus is that he was doping before cancer (hospital confession) what changed?

 

[Ninety5rpm]

i know all that, but if he was doping before 99 what was the difference from 99 on? the consensus is that he was doping before cancer (hospital confession) what changed?

I don't think he's lying when he says cancer gave him more focus. But that is likely to have made him focus more on ALL ASPECTS of his program...

So he trained better, and he ate better, and ... all that made the change.

 

[patricknd]

I don't think he's lying when he says cancer gave him more focus. But that is likely to have made him focus more on ALL ASPECTS of his program...

So he trained better, and he ate better, and ... all that made the change.

that's what i always assumed, i was curious about others ideas.

 

[buckwheat]

that's what i always assumed, i was curious about others ideas.

When you read his first book he talks about his proposed cancer treatments. The oncologist at MD Anderson wanted to bombard his body with high levels of chemo which would have destroyed his lungs and ended his career. He said he normally would have gone with that approach.

The doctors at Indiana wanted to use a different drug which may have been more toxic in the short term but would spare his lungs and enable him to return to cycling.

My take on this is that he learned that with PED's, more is not necessarily better and he fine tuned his dosage and timing rather than gorged himself at the buffet as he did previous to '99.

 

[BroDeal]

i know all that, but if he was doping before 99 what was the difference from 99 on? the consensus is that he was doping before cancer (hospital confession) what changed?

The restrotesting provides the clues. The 1998 retrospective testing showed 40 positives for EPO. The 1999 testing showed12 positives, including six from Armstrong and all four prologue samples. This indicates that there was greatly reduced EPO usage during the race. compared to 1998 That all the prologue samples were positve indicates that most riders probably shot up before the TdF and then did not use during the race. Armstrong on the other hand continued to use during the entire Tour. He was doping more than anyone else.

That philosphy of doing what the others would not do or being on the cutting edge may have continued in subsequent Tours. The team may have been one of the first to move to blood transfusions. Tests in subsequent Tours showed no EPO, natural or artificial, in samples; a masking agent was obviously being used.

Bringing on the Hog and the doctors from ONCE provided tip offs for random OOC controls, something that was probably very valuable during "preparation" during training.

 

[Polish]

if armstrong was doping before cancer, doping after cancer, no weight differential, not any more mentally tough than his opponents, why did he suddenly win 7. what was the difference?

Everyone else STOPPED doping in 1999, but Lance did not get the memo.

 

[franciep10]

Everyone else STOPPED doping in 1999, but Lance did not get the memo.

Because of the Festina Affair which you probably never heard of, after the 1999 tour it was declared a great win for CLEAN cycling, plus Pantani was busted so everyone was on eggshells except for Lance and a couple others

 

[BroDeal]

Because of the Festina Affair which you probably never heard of, after the 1999 tour it was declared a great win for CLEAN cycling, plus Pantani was busted so everyone was on eggshells except for Lance and a couple others

And that is why all the prologue sample's were positive but there was a huge reduction in positives during the race. People were afraid of police raids, so they did not want to be carrying their junk with them.

 

[franciep10]

i know all that, but if he was doping before 99 what was the difference from 99 on? the consensus is that he was doping before cancer (hospital confession) what changed?

He went to Italy and bought a ferrari

 

[Bag_O_Wallet]

i know all that, but if he was doping before 99 what was the difference from 99 on? the consensus is that he was doping before cancer (hospital confession) what changed?

Purely speculative, but I'd say what changed was the will and machinery behind him. If he could be put put back together again, and make him stronger than he was - people would eat it up, and be filled with hope. I'd have to imagine that this message was stressed to him when he thought about giving up in 1998.

Post 98, the Tour and the rest of cycling needed a virtuous hero - much like baseball needed Sosa and McGuire. Certainly the guy who just recovered from cancer wasn't going to do drugs, right? He certainly wasn't going to risk his health, right? In between stories of him risking life and limb during training (and the two stupid accidents on open roads that nearly killed him) he said so in Every Second Counts.

Is the UCI gonna want to catch him? No - he's good for business. So, tip offs, stalls etc.

Perhaps I've watched too many mobster movies, but I'd figure he knows he's got dirt on people, so he knows he can act like how he wants without too much regard.

Where was I going... yeah, political and economic will behind him changed.

 

[Race Radio]

i know all that, but if he was doping before 99 what was the difference from 99 on? the consensus is that he was doping before cancer (hospital confession) what changed?

According to former teammates Armstrong started his EPO program in 1995. His improvement was noticeable, he finally finished the Tour, won two stages, San Sebastian, Tour de Pont GC. He started using Ferrari in late 1995 and showed similar improvement before being cancer stopped his season.

Armstrong was a good rider before getting on a full program but with the addition of blood related doping he improved dramatically.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

According to former teammates Armstrong started his EPO program in 1995. His improvement was noticeable, he finally finished the Tour, won two stages, San Sebastian, Tour de Pont GC. He started using Ferrari in late 1995 and showed similar improvement before being cancer stopped his season.

Armstrong was a good rider before getting on a full program but with the addition of blood related doping he improved dramatically.

Are you trying to imply that he was the only, or one of the few, using such a program?

That fact remains that he was not a flash in the pan. He did not win just once or twice; he won, of course, seven years in a row.

There was a lot of opportunity for many people to train and get on the program, year after year, and beat him. They tried, and they couldn't. I would believe that he might have had the best drugs and luck one year, two years, or maybe even three years. But seven years? In a row? And nobody else came up with a better program? That tells me that he had something special that could not be bought. In that sense, I think he was a true champion.

 

[BroDeal]

Are you trying to imply that he was the only, or one of the few, using such a program?

That fact remains that he was not a flash in the pan. He did not win just once or twice; he won, of course, seven years in a row.

There was a lot of opportunity for many people to train and get on the program, year after year, and beat him. They tried, and they couldn't. I would believe that he might have had the best drugs and luck one year, two years, or maybe even three years. But seven years? In a row? And nobody else came up with a better program? That tells me that he had something special that could not be bought. In that sense, I think he was a true champion.

Then why did he have Dr. Ferrari aggree not to train his rivals? That says a lot right there. After he retired and the agreement was no longer in effect, riders like FLandis made giant gains. When Basso got on the platinum program in 2006 he was from another planet.

This discussion should be moved to The Clinic so we can go back to making fun of Armstrong's weight.

 

[python]

Are you trying to imply that he was the only, or one of the few, using such a program?

That fact remains that he was not a flash in the pan. He did not win just once or twice; he won, of course, seven years in a row.

There was a lot of opportunity for many people to train and get on the program, year after year, and beat him. They tried, and they couldn't. I would believe that he might have had the best drugs and luck one year, two years, or maybe even three years. But seven years? In a row? And nobody else came up with a better program? That tells me that he had something special that could not be bought. In that sense, I think he was a true champion.

let me say it as nicely as i can - a naive phrase.

its surprising b/s i,ve seen many well reasoned postings from you.

armstrons secret is:
(i) a combination that remains undetectable,
(ii) a daring bordering on gambling.
(iii) luck

he (and 1-2 top intimates) took extraordinary care of staying abreast with and ahead of the latest testing science that by the nature of western standards is 99% in public domain. it was mentioned many times, every time armstrong stumbled over a test - it was a new test that at the time of a positive did not exist. add to this a designer steroid potential (ask patrick what steroids can do to a cancer survivor). catlin is the words best steroid specialist and armstrong dumped him b/c he understood thats what catlin was after.

that secret edge is obviously his chief hope since unretirement but he miscalculated other factors. again because of his vanity and arrogance.

 

[bianchigirl]

Are you trying to imply that he was the only, or one of the few, using such a program?

That fact remains that he was not a flash in the pan. He did not win just once or twice; he won, of course, seven years in a row.

There was a lot of opportunity for many people to train and get on the program, year after year, and beat him. They tried, and they couldn't. I would believe that he might have had the best drugs and luck one year, two years, or maybe even three years. But seven years? In a row? And nobody else came up with a better program? That tells me that he had something special that could not be bought. In that sense, I think he was a true champion.

Something special that couldn't be bought by his rivals - Ferrari. Under an exclusive contract to train Armstrong and team and only them. With the ability to refine what had gone before and take not just one rider but his entire team to race ready perfection. Can you imagine how much that costs? That kind of programme doesn't come cheap - who else in the peloton besides a handful of teams could afford anything approaching it? And none of them had access to the expertise of the best.

What you need to understand is that Armstrong is utterly atypical for a TdF champion. ll the other greats showed true ability - and the ability to win a GT early in their careers. The one's that didn't - Riis and Indurain immediately spring to mind - emerged in the 90s, the heyday of EPO, the era that turned donkeys to racehorses. And you could argue that both Riis and Indurain may have shown their ability earlier had they not been riding for others. But Armstrong was always the team leader, always the protected rider. Reasonable one day results, check. Ability to do more than poach stage wins in a GT - uh-uh. But then along came Eddy B (blood doping), Ferrari (micro dosing), the Hog (ex-ONCE/Saiz) et voila - the perfect storm of doping expertise.

 

[Cycling Addict]

...

I don't think that is fair. How many different ways are there to take EPO?

Given Armstrong's performance at the Giro last year without adequate preperation and clean blood numbers, we know that a magic drug is not the key to his success. You have to remember Armstrong started his career during the era of the two speed peloton so would not have been able to impress in the grand tours. Greg Lemond famously was churned out the back during the same period. If he had started his career at the same time as Armstrong you would be claiming he was rubbish without dope.

 

[python]

I don't think that is fair. How many different ways are there to take EPO?

Given Armstrong's performance at the Giro last year without adequate preperation and clean blood numbers, we know that a magic drug is not the key to his success. You have to remember Armstrong started his career during the era of the two speed peloton so would not have been able to impress in the grand tours. Greg Lemond famously was churned out the back during the same period. If he had started his career at the same time as Armstrong you would be claiming he was rubbish without dope.

as usual BPC, your logic is warped and your perceptions are uniquely inverted.

if you insist armstrong was clean in the giro, being 12th is not a sign of success by any stretch of imagination even a perverted one like yours.

 

[Cycling Addict]

as usual BPC, your logic is warped and your perceptions are uniquely inverted.

if you insist armstrong was clean in the giro, being 12th is not a sign of success by any stretch of imagination even a perverted one like yours.

But I'm sure you know enough about the sport to understand why this was an excellent performance given the circumstances. This was someone who had not ridden a grand tour for almost four years, had broken their collarbone during the preperation, and was 37 years old. Plus he was not trying during the last week in order not to pick up another injury and was extremely careful in the time trial in Rome, deliberately sacrificing at least a couple of places in the overall.

I think this fairly basic logic really nails the myths that surround Armstrong and how much dope helped him. We should be honest about it.

 

[bianchigirl]

Hmm, wonder why we saw values indicative of blood doping at the Tour, then? Besides, the actual off scores for the Giro tell a rather different story about his supposed 'cleanness'

 

[python]

But I'm sure you know enough

yes i do. enough not to waste anymore time on a multi-headed troll and his warped view of cycling.

 

[BroDeal]

Plus he was not trying during the last week in order not to pick up another injury and was extremely careful in the time trial in Rome, deliberately sacrificing at least a couple of places in the overall.

You can always tell when it is BPC. The stupidity is unmistakable..

 

[poupou]

as usual BPC, your logic is warped and your perceptions are uniquely inverted.

if you insist armstrong was clean in the giro, being 12th is not a sign of success by any stretch of imagination even a perverted one like yours.

On last Giro, Lance was just tested 2 times (and one 2 days before its begining), so it's difficult to see peaks of blood transfusion.

But even if there is a drop of his values, they are not as big as expected. After the first 9 days, he still had 40% as hematocrit, while his reticulocytes were at 0.7 !

Difficult to believe he was clean but he received less fresh blood than on TDF.

 

[Cops n Robbers]

yes i do. enough not to waste anymore time on a multi-headed troll and his warped view of cycling.

I'm sincerely surprised that you believe that four years out, an injury and being careful not to get an injury for the TdF, does not make 12 place actually astonishingly good.

Can you name anyone in the sport that would agree with you about that? If it's so crazy it should be easy to name some experts who would agree with you?

 

[I managed to PM him]

You can always tell when it is BPC. The stupidity is unmistakable..

Again I'm surprised that you didn't notice Armstrong being careful not to pick up an injury in the last week. He was laughing and joking on the TT ramp, and came about 50th. Remember it had been raining and was a very dangerous course, as Menchov discovered.

But you say this is "stupidity". Does that means it's not true?

 

[I managed to PM him]

You could not stop me posting a rational response. I got the PMs through.

Bad luck, Stalin.