The truth about L.A

[Hillavoider]

Hmmm. Now that he's a drug cheat


Good good, feel the truth flow through you

i hope you read the article on the 1999 tour samples.

 

[bianchigirl]

Lion, you might like to check Laurent Jalabert's 1995 season - actually, just looking at Jaja's palmares alongside Armstrong's in 1995/6 I struggle to reach yr conclusion on the elevated status of Armstrong's Classic palmares - he's also often trumpeted as being World Number 1 in 1996 - but didn't finish either 95 or 96 as number 1 (that was, surprise, surprise Laurent Jalabert). Armstrong was good but he wasn't great - more of a Beloki than an Indurain. Please read 'Inside the Tour de France' for a more realistic picture of his abilities than the rather tawdry sham that has been the rest of his career.

BTW I generally find velopalmares an excellent site for palmares comparisons

 

[Roland Rat]

Lance Armstrong pre-cancer = Phil Gilbert (being generous). And Phil Gilbert doesn't even bother riding the Tour, never mind have delusions of transforming himself into a GT rider.

But then Gilbert is clean.

 

[Race Radio]

Hmmm. Now that he's a drug cheat he "won convincingly". Its funny that back in the day, when people wanted to slag on Lance's first win, they never said he "won convincingly". They said:

No Ulrich
No Pantani
Were it not for Passage du Gois, and Zulle losing 6 minutes, he might not have won at all. (he won by what? 7:30?)

The Troll is back. BPC, you must be close to 50 usernames by now? Something to talk with your therapist about

 

[Roland Rat]

Lion, you might like to check Laurent Jalabert's 1995 season

Jalabert was ridiculous. Started off as a pretty average sprinter, and became a fantastic GT rider.

 

[Anonymous]

The Troll is back. BPC, you must be close to 50 usernames by now? Something to talk with your therapist about

All people you dont agree with are BPC??? Just so you know, flanders is NOT bpc.

 

[kurtinsc]

Lance did toil as a nobody..except for the frenchman winning on bastille day esqe stage win after teammate Fabio Casartelli's death Lance was broom wagon foder. When people said Lance was a potential classics rider that was just a kind way of saying he was not tour material...Saying he was a possible classics rider was even generous.

Really? The guy won Trofeo Laigueglia in his first full year as a pro with Motorola... then won a Tour stage... then won Worlds. In his second full pro season he was 2nd in Clasica San Sebastian and 2nd in Liege.

If winning worlds and finishing 2nd in Liege and San Sebastian before your 24th birthday doesn't indicate you are a talent in the classics (not northern classics... the hilly classics), I'm not sure what does.

 

[buckwheat]

All people you dont agree with are BPC??? Just so you know, flanders is NOT bpc.

Their arguments and style all suggest they hatched from a pod though!

Yabba dabba doooo!

Why is that?

 

[redtreviso]

Really? The guy won Trofeo Laigueglia in his first full year as a pro with Motorola... then won a Tour stage... then won Worlds. In his second full pro season he was 2nd in Clasica San Sebastian and 2nd in Liege.

If winning worlds and finishing 2nd in Liege and San Sebastian before your 24th birthday doesn't indicate you are a talent in the classics (not northern classics... the hilly classics), I'm not sure what does.

Much?

 

[kurtinsc]

Much?

I'm not sure who that is or what the picture or "much?" quote is supposed to mean.

But to say a 22 year old rider who got 2nd in Liege-Bastogne-Liege wasn't much of a classics talent is stupid.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

Really? The guy won Trofeo Laigueglia in his first full year as a pro with Motorola... then won a Tour stage... then won Worlds. In his second full pro season he was 2nd in Clasica San Sebastian and 2nd in Liege.

If winning worlds and finishing 2nd in Liege and San Sebastian before your 24th birthday doesn't indicate you are a talent in the classics (not northern classics... the hilly classics), I'm not sure what does.

In his first professional race in Europe he finished last, so far behind that everyone had gone home.

And that world championship was held in atrocious weather conditions where half the field dropped out before halfway. In Norway when its cold and rainy you can be sure most of the warm weather riders just thought "sod it, let's wait til next year". Lots of less solidly built guys just can't perform in that kind of cold - they can't keep warm enough. Races in those sorts of conditions come down to who was the strongest on the day, not who is the strongest.

His classics record is hardly world class anyway. Plus its largely irrelevant to GT performances, at which pre Ferrari Lance was mediocre. he couldn't climb or TT for toffee.

Imagine someone like Roger Hammond or Ballanstarting to train with Ferrari, and then going up mountains 5 mins faster than the best climbers in the world and dominating TT's. It would be a total farce.

 

[Terminal Cyclist]

1999 was a pretty clean TDF after festina except that Lance was juiced to the eyeballs and won convincingly.

How do you know that? EPO lasts for four weeks (longer if you're not doing a tour). It would be easy to juice up before a tour. Also testing depends how well you are doing in the race. The closer to the front, the more you are tested.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

How do you know that? EPO lasts for four weeks (longer if you're not doing a tour). It would be easy to juice up before a tour. Also testing depends how well you are doing in the race. The closer to the front, the more you are tested.

so if it is easy to dope up before a tour why did Lance do it during and why was he so much better than the rest?

 

[kurtinsc]

In his first professional race in Europe he finished last, so far behind that everyone had gone home.

And that world championship was held in atrocious weather conditions where half the field dropped out before halfway. In Norway when its cold and rainy you can be sure most of the warm weather riders just thought "sod it, let's wait til next year". Lots of less solidly built guys just can't perform in that kind of cold - they can't keep warm enough. Races in those sorts of conditions come down to who was the strongest on the day, not who is the strongest.

His classics record is hardly world class anyway. Plus its largely irrelevant to GT performances, at which pre Ferrari Lance was mediocre. he couldn't climb or TT for toffee.

Imagine someone like Roger Hammond or Ballanstarting to train with Ferrari, and then going up mountains 5 mins faster than the best climbers in the world and dominating TT's. It would be a total farce.

Of course it would.

People here seem to think anything at all positive toward Lance is somehow stating he didn't dope.

The doping goes without stating.

I just took exception to the idea that a guy in his first two years of racing professionally with Motorola won Worlds, and took second in San Sebastian and Liege-Bastogne-Liege doesn't show a fair bit of Classics potential.

I'm not saying he was a great classics rider already at that point. But come on... a guy in his second year today who was runner up at Liege would be hyped at the next big thing in the classics by all of our fans. That's an amazing result for a young rider. Combine that with a world championship and a 2nd place at San Sebastian, and you have a pretty solid 1-day palmares for a guy with 2 seasons under his belt.

Who knows what he'd have done if he went full bore toward the classics? Probably with the same chemical enhancement he got for the Tour, he would have been pretty good at the Ardennes.

 

[Red Lobster]

What?

Er, okay. The point of the analogy, which doesn't really seem that mysterious to me is this: if someone screws with you and you family you might be inclined to take them off your Christmas card list, and I am surprised that is not self-evident to you. If Armstrong threatens Betsy and her family, she might tend to view him unfavorably (shocker!). Similarly, if Madoff steals your retirement money, you and your family might tend to think ill of him.

 

[Terminal Cyclist]

Anti doping world: not possible to cover up positive

Two key figures from the anti doping world have said it would be very difficult indeed to cover up a positive test.

IOC president Jacques Rogge:

"To my knowledge it is not possible to hide a positive result," Rogge told ESPN. "The lab knows the code. WADA gets it also. Then it goes to the national and international federations. One person cannot decide: 'I can put this under the carpet.'"

Former president of the German cycling federation, Sylvia Schenk, echoed this opinion. Schenk held the position at the time of events and now chairs an international organisation fighting corruption, Transparency International.

"I do not think that a positive doping test can be easily covered up, especially in the case of such a famous rider like Armstrong," Schenk told Cyclingnews on Tuesday. "The tests are performed in accredited labs; it would be difficult to bury a positive result as there are too many people involved. But not only that: I also doubt that the UCI would do such a thing."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/schenk-uci-needs-more-transparency

Schenk goes on to criticise the perception caused by Armstrong's donation to the UCI and calls for more transparency. But it would appear the allegation that Armstrong somehow overruled a positive test is the weakest part of Landis' case. Does this now call into question Landis' other claims?

 

[Terminal Cyclist]

so if it is easy to dope up before a tour why did Lance do it during and why was he so much better than the rest?

He did it in a different way. He was still better than the rest during other years when blood transfusions were used by other teams during the tour, so i don't think you can nail it all down to that.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

He did it in a different way. He was still better than the rest during other years when blood transfusions were used by other teams during the tour, so i don't think you can nail it all down to that.

He was the best because he had an exclusive contract with the best doping doctor, that's all.

Ferrari guaranteed success, and knew how not to get caught. Once the ball was rolling and the heroic anti cancer warrior had inspired millions of newcomers to buy bikes and watch the tour the powers ruynning cycling ensured the legacy continued.

 

[Terminal Cyclist]

He was the best because he had an exclusive contract with the best doping doctor, that's all.

Ferrari guaranteed success, and knew how not to get caught. Once the ball was rolling and the heroic anti cancer warrior had inspired millions of newcomers to buy bikes and watch the tour the powers ruynning cycling ensured the legacy continued.

Personally I don't think it's that simple. Maybe he could win one tour that way, but I think there has to be more to it to win seven in a row.

 

[alberto.legstrong]

I am watching this all with genuine interest.

The events in the news? Well, yes...but I am watching this thread in genuine boredom and frustration.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Personally I don't think it's that simple. Maybe he could win one tour that way, but I think there has to be more to it to win seven in a row.

Like what BPC, a heart the size of an elephant?

 

[alberto.legstrong]

Its fun watching these people defend pharmstrong. Ha Ha i gotta laugh sometimes. pharmstrong supporters are known to raid boards which are negetive about pharmstrong. i was on an Australian site that got raided by pharmstrong supporters. when contador won the tour. its just so amazing how far lance's tenticles reach.
i've finally joined this forum because this is a watershed moment.

tenticles, huh? interesting choice of word. (formerly plural)

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

Personally I don't think it's that simple. Maybe he could win one tour that way, but I think there has to be more to it to win seven in a row.

concentrating solely on the Tour, and having a team who were also on the best medical programme available didn't do any harm.

If you're on Ferrari's juice and you have 6 guys pulling for you in the elite group on every climb when your rivals have maybe one teammate (and others none) it will take something spectacular for you to lose the tour, not win.

 

[alberto.legstrong]

Well, the screen says 4, but I seem to remember it registering 9.9. Who trusts a wtfometer reading anyway. I don't.

I hate half truths, BTW. Sorry, carry on.

If you send a big enough check to the wtf judges, they will turn the positive for wtf to a negative.

The wtf testers are waiting outside until the wtf levels drop back to normal and at that time they will test this thread for wtf.

Other threads who don't have as much bank or as much clout may test pos. for wtf even if their wtf levels are lower.

 

[Terminal Cyclist]

concentrating solely on the Tour, and having a team who were also on the best medical programme available didn't do any harm.

If you're on Ferrari's juice and you have 6 guys pulling for you in the elite group on every climb when your rivals have maybe one teammate (and others none) it will take something spectacular for you to lose the tour, not win.

But Armstrong still won or came close to winning nearly all his ITT's. Surely people from his own team, on the same "Ferrari juice", would be just as good?