USADA - Armstrong

[MarkvW]

Ironically your own 1000th+ post was an extremely weak one, as it smacked of elitism and pomposity based purely on one's number of posts.

I think NO forum members should be allowed to derail conversations, regardless of how many or how few posts they have made. There is no threshold of posts above which someone suddenly knows what they are talking about.

But what do I know, based on my own low post-count I am evidently not qualified to participate in the "higher-level conversations" within the clinic.

You are hereby officially qualified to post whatever you want.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Well, yes and no.
Your comparisons are centered on GT performance. Here is a list of great riders who will never win a GT - Gilbert, Cancellara, Sagan, wiggins (<we'll see who's paying attention)

That is not a slight on Armstrong - in fact far from it.
One thing you have not factored in to your analysis is the ability to recover. Even in a wide open race like this years TDF there are realistically only 4 or 5 contenders. Many fantastic riders have come up short in GTs as they will have a bad day. EPO helped limit that.

The comment about being a domestique is an analogy making the point that domestiques in GTs have inferior physiology suited to a GT than the GC contenders.

Therefore, what I am saying is that if you are a rider with inferior physiology, you will not become a tour contender even if you dope (its a moot point what your exact role in the team is). Why? Well because we know that already all of the GC contenders with the superior GT physiology are ALREADY doping. Only someone with naturally superior physiology to begin with, who then also doped, could have won the tour circa 1992-2008.

Same concept applies for Indurain, Pantani, Ullrich and other top riders of the era. If nobody was doping, none of them would have been domestiques.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The comment about being a domestique is an analogy making the point that domestiques in GTs have inferior physiology suited to a GT than the GC contenders.

Therefore, what I am saying is that if you are a rider with inferior physiology, you will not become a tour contender even if you dope (its a moot point what your exact role in the team is). Why? Well because we know that already all of the GC contenders with the superior GT physiology are ALREADY doping. Only someone with naturally superior physiology to begin with, who then also doped, could have won the tour circa 1992-2008.

Same concept applies for Indurain, Pantani, Ullrich and other top riders of the era. If nobody was doping, none of them would have been domestiques.

Again, your concept is focused on the GTs.
Plenty of great riders with GC ambition never made the top step. From the 80 s guys like Mottet, Anderson, Criquelion, and Vuelta aside even Kelly.
These guys could TT and climb reasonably well, and could do very well in 7 to 10 day races. But would succumb to a sans jour over 3 weeks.
If they had EPO it would have almost removed that.

As for the list of riders from the 90s you provide - quite simply we will never know what their natural capabilities was.

 

[Krebs cycle]

wrong. he didn't. contending for a tour requires natural recuperation. without epo armstrong did not have the ability to recuperate. fact.

sorry.

Same concept applies to all the riders.

Besides, it is the HGH/IGF-1 and steroid hormones that have a greater impact on recovery than EPO.

 

[Polish]

Riis. He fetched bottles before he found EPO

Riis carried bottles for Fignon as a young pro. Studdly.

And when Fignon retired, Riis stepped up as a DangerMan.
Riis was ALWAYS a DangerMan in the TdF. Beautiful on his Celeste Steel Bianchi. Elegant and strong.

1993 was an important year. THEYear of Omerta. The Elder Statesmen of the peloton knew all about EPO. Young riders just starting out HAD to dope to fit in. Sad. In hindsight, Bjarne now wishes he Broke Omerta in 1993. He is honest enough to admit that. Good on you Bjarne.

ps....Lance would have still won 7 TdF's even if Omerta was broken in 1993.

 

[Oldman]

Riis carried bottles for Fignon as a young pro. Studdly.

And when Fignon retired, Riis stepped up as a DangerMan.
Riis was ALWAYS a DangerMan in the TdF. Beautiful on his Celeste Steel Bianchi. Elegant and strong.

1993 was an important year. THEYear of Omerta. The Elder Statesmen of the peloton knew all about EPO. Young riders just starting out HAD to dope to fit in. Sad. In hindsight, Bjarne now wishes he Broke Omerta in 1993. He is honest enough to admit that. Good on you Bjarne.

ps....Lance would have still won 7 TdF's even if Omerta was broken in 1993.

Seeing Lance as a younger amateur and pro when he was already known to be juiced he barely could've finished a Tour. Of course you were joking and I thank you for the reminder not to be so serious.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Riis carried bottles for Fignon as a young pro. Studdly.

And when Fignon retired, Riis stepped up as a DangerMan.
Riis was ALWAYS a DangerMan in the TdF. Beautiful on his Celeste Steel Bianchi. Elegant and strong.

1993 was an important year. THEYear of Omerta. The Elder Statesmen of the peloton knew all about EPO. Young riders just starting out HAD to dope to fit in. Sad. In hindsight, Bjarne now wishes he Broke Omerta in 1993. He is honest enough to admit that. Good on you Bjarne.

ps....Lance would have still won 7 TdF's even if Omerta was broken in 1993.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Again, your concept is focused on the GTs.
Plenty of great riders with GC ambition never made the top step. From the 80 s guys like Mottet, Anderson, Criquelion, and Vuelta aside even Kelly.
These guys could TT and climb reasonably well, and could do very well in 7 to 10 day races. But would succumb to a sans jour over 3 weeks.
If they had EPO it would have almost removed that.

As for the list of riders from the 90s you provide - quite simply we will never know what their natural capabilities was.

No my concept is focused on an understanding of human physiology. And as I stated above, steroid hormones have a greater impact on recovery from high intensity exercise than EPO. The other thing that people either forget in here or just don't know, is that steroid hormones stimulate the production of EPO. Therefore, steroids are almost certainly, on their own, going to improve aerobic capacity. Steroid hormones were the drug of choice in the 80s, thus how do you know that those riders above were NOT on a level playing field when it came to PEDs? You don't, which means it is possible that even despite taking steroids, they succumbed to a GT because they had inferior physiology and preparation than those who eventually went on to win.... who were also probably taking steroids eg: Lemond, Fignon and Hinault.

 

[Microchip]

wrong. he didn't. contending for a tour requires natural recuperation. without epo armstrong did not have the ability to recuperate. fact.

sorry.

+1.

Here's a quote from F. Andreu in David Walsh's book:

"... Lance came back the spring of '96 and he was ... huge. He looked like a linebacker ... Obviously we all noticed it and he knew we did. He said something about [Dr. Michele] Ferrari not realizing the effect the weight room was going to have ..."

Lance had mentioned to a teammate that ferrari was worried that he had given him cancer. So he was already competing with the use of PEDs and placing only 97th and 36th. He isn't a phenomenal rider, but he wished that he was.

 

[Cal_Joe]

Let's play Guess The Troll.

For the grand prize all you must do is properly answer this question: Katy In The Keys is the return of which previously banned poster?

Please only one entry per person.

You are being toyed with. Some previously banned posters just love to cause mischief (those rascals!) and post in an antipodal fashion.

I nominate Jeremiah, previously known as Buckwheat/LarryBudMelman/possibly other sockpuppets.

 

[Big Doopie]

As for the list of riders from the 90s you provide - quite simply we will never know what their natural capabilities was.

+1. absolutely.

how good is scarponi, really? give me a break, people in the racing forum talk about him like he's some huge natural talent. what a joke. the guy was in puerto and now ferrari. how good is this guy for real?

 

[Big Doopie]

Besides, it is the HGH/IGF-1 and steroid hormones that have a greater impact on recovery than EPO.

not sure about that. epo=54% gain in time to exhaustion. not much recover needed if you are rarely exhausted.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No my concept is focused on an understanding of human physiology. And as I stated above, steroid hormones have a greater impact on recovery from high intensity exercise than EPO. The other thing that people either forget in here or just don't know, is that steroid hormones stimulate the production of EPO. Therefore, steroids are almost certainly, on their own, going to improve aerobic capacity. Steroid hormones were the drug of choice in the 80s, thus how do you know that those riders above were NOT on a level playing field when it came to PEDs? You don't, which means it is possible that even despite taking steroids, they succumbed to a GT because they had inferior physiology and preparation than those who eventually went on to win.... who were also probably taking steroids eg: Lemond, Fignon and Hinault.

But we are discussing a 3 week event.
I dont have it handy, but if you read Millars book about doing the Vuelta on EPO it shows the ability to do enormous efforts day after day was its biggest advantage.

 

[Krebs cycle]

not sure about that. epo=54% gain in time to exhaustion. not much recover needed if you are rarely exhausted.

Time to exhaustion tests measure how long you can go for at a set workload. If you also have superior physiology then you also go longer in a time to exhaustion test. Anyway, that isn't what happens in a race. You need to read the velominati my friend.....

Rule #10
It never gets easier, you just go faster

http://www.velominati.com/the-rules/

 

[Krebs cycle]

But we are discussing a 3 week event.
I dont have it handy, but if you read Millars book about doing the Vuelta on EPO it shows the ability to do enormous efforts day after day was its biggest advantage.

And again you are forgetting that is it likely not just the top riders from the 1980s until at least 2005 were doping, but many of the domestiques too, and many of them were using the same doctors and the same methods. What I am suggesting is that all of the top riders who were doping, probably had fairly similar enhancements in BOTH performance and recovery. If you take that away from ALL of them, then they all go a bit slower and recover a bit more poorly, which makes them go a bit slower in the last week of a GT. The TdF is 100yrs old. We know from history that it is humanly possible to complete such a feat of endurance without the use of EPO..... you just go slower.

In actual fact, some people probably do respond better to PEDs than others and some riders probably did have a bigger PED budget. So if you take the PEDs away, then maybe some riders have a bigger performance drop than others. However, the performance drop (which is analogous to performance gain) will not be so great that a 7 time consecutive TdF winner, suddenly becomes a rank and file rider that cannot ever rise beyond water bottle fetcher. If you take away the PEDs from him and nobody else, then sure, but not if you keep the playing field level.

 

[mewmewmew13]

+1.

Here's a quote from F. Andreu in David Walsh's book:

"... Lance came back the spring of '96 and he was ... huge. He looked like a linebacker ... Obviously we all noticed it and he knew we did. He said something about [Dr. Michele] Ferrari not realizing the effect the weight room was going to have ..."

Lance had mentioned to a teammate that ferrari was worried that he had given him cancer. So he was already competing with the use of PEDs and placing only 97th and 36th. He isn't a phenomenal rider, but he wished that he was.

I never did read Walsh's book and for certain have never seen this particular quote!
Holy cr@p! that is funny...and a bit creepy.

Transformations like that are bizarre though. From what I have seen in photos of a younger Lance vs his bulky top-heavy tanker modern look it is a striking diff.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

And again you are forgetting that is it likely all of the top riders from the 1980s until at least 2005 were doping, and many of them were using the same doctors and the same methods. What I am suggesting is that all of the top riders who were doping, probably had fairly similar enhancements in BOTH performance and recovery. If you take that away from ALL of them, then they all go a bit slower and recover a bit more poorly, which makes them go a bit slower in the last week of a GT. The TdF is 100yrs old. We know from history that it is humanly possible to complete such a feat of endurance without the use of EPO..... you just go slower.

In actual fact, some people probably do respond better to PEDs than others and some riders probably did have a bigger PED budget. So if you take the PEDs away, then maybe some riders have a bigger performance drop than others. However, the performance drop (which is analogous to performance gain) will not be so great that a 7 time consecutive TdF winner, suddenly becomes a rank and file rider that cannot ever rise beyond water bottle fetcher. If you take away the PEDs from him and nobody else, then sure, but not if you keep the playing field level.

Would you quit bringing up this particular strawman? Nobody is suggesting that he would have been just a bottle fetcher. Again and again you have been provided examples of riders who did exactly what you say they cannot. You also act like EPO is the only drug that matters. Ferrari is a genius. I am betting (and the payment just uncovered by the Italian authorities suggest as much) that there was a cocktail of drugs involved, and nobody was better at figuring out what that should be than Ferrari.

I take it back, you are getting very close to a "cool story bro" because I am starting to smell a familiar sockpuppet.

 

[Neworld]

In actual fact, some people probably do respond better to PEDs than others and some riders probably did have a bigger PED budget.

Yes, bigger budget means more expensive and eloborate PEDS.

Who had a 'team' full of high budget PEDS...a big blue train that is now crashing off of steep switchback. Bad entry, bad exit.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

And again you are forgetting that is it likely not just the top riders from the 1980s until at least 2005 were doping, but many of the domestiques too, and many of them were using the same doctors and the same methods. What I am suggesting is that all of the top riders who were doping, probably had fairly similar enhancements in BOTH performance and recovery. If you take that away from ALL of them, then they all go a bit slower and recover a bit more poorly, which makes them go a bit slower in the last week of a GT. The TdF is 100yrs old. We know from history that it is humanly possible to complete such a feat of endurance without the use of EPO..... you just go slower.

No idea where you get that I am forgetting that people in the 80s were not doping - of course they were.
However the methods and products were quite different to those of the 90's - which is why we are discussing EPO.

In actual fact, some people probably do respond better to PEDs than others and some riders probably did have a bigger PED budget. So if you take the PEDs away, then maybe some riders have a bigger performance drop than others. However, the performance drop (which is analogous to performance gain) will not be so great that a 7 time consecutive TdF winner, suddenly becomes a rank and file rider that cannot ever rise beyond water bottle fetcher. If you take away the PEDs from him and nobody else, then sure, but not if you keep the playing field level.

Again, you are fixated that anyone who is not a GC contender is a "bottle fetcher".

Quite simply, Armstrong showed zero ability in stage races prior to hooking up with Ferrari. If all doping was removed I doubt he would have been a GT winner, probably top 10 and certainly a Classics rider.

 

[joe_papp]

It appears they want to strip everything from 1998 on. There is precedent for this action but I am sure Armstrong will fight it

yeah, including my case.

caught doping in 2006.
casually, in passing, cop to doping starting 2001.
sanction magically changes to invalidate all results going back to random date in July 2001, and no longer from Tour of Turkey 2006 fwd.

They don't miss a chance to apply the sanction to its full effect!

 

[patricknd]

You are being toyed with. Some previously banned posters just love to cause mischief (those rascals!) and post in an antipodal fashion.

I nominate Jeremiah, previously known as Buckwheat/LarryBudMelman/possibly other sockpuppets.

Jeremiah's not obnoxious enough to be buckwheat

 

[Krebs cycle]

Would you quit bringing up this particular strawman? Nobody is suggesting that he would have been just a bottle fetcher. Again and again you have been provided examples of riders who did exactly what you say they cannot. You also act like EPO is the only drug that matters. Ferrari is a genius. I am betting (and the payment just uncovered by the Italian authorities suggest as much) that there was a cocktail of drugs involved, and nobody was better at figuring out what that should be than Ferrari.

I take it back, you are getting very close to a "cool story bro" because I am starting to smell a familiar sockpuppet.

What? I said above the 1990s cocktail was EPO/HGH/IGF-1/steroid hormone. Autologous blood transfusions have been used since the early 1980s. The list of riders whom have worked with Conconi, Ferrari, Fuentes alone would run into the hundreds, and the science is not that mind blowing that many other less high profile doctors could not have learnt the trade. Even the riders themselves became adept at doping methods on their own.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that many people are suggesting that wrt to GTs, LA would have been a complete nobody if it weren't for PEDs. What I am saying is that in a pro-peloton where PEDs are almost ubiquitous that would be true. However, if you take away PEDs from everyone, then LA had the genetics and determination to be a top 10 finisher, and maybe even a winner.

If you disagree then why don't you tell me where you think LA would have been relatively placed in an ideal world in which pro-cycling was completely clean. Top 10? Top 20? Non-GC contender?

 

[Berzin]

A few questions-

1) When was Dr. Ferrari banned from working with cyclists?

2) Why can't he be stopped?

3) Does Armstrong's $465,000 payment to Ferrari represent a one-time payment, or were payments totaling said amount made over a period of years?

 

[MarkvW]

Would you quit bringing up this particular strawman? Nobody is suggesting that he would have been just a bottle fetcher. Again and again you have been provided examples of riders who did exactly what you say they cannot. You also act like EPO is the only drug that matters. Ferrari is a genius. I am betting (and the payment just uncovered by the Italian authorities suggest as much) that there was a cocktail of drugs involved, and nobody was better at figuring out what that should be than Ferrari.

I take it back, you are getting very close to a "cool story bro" because I am starting to smell a familiar sockpuppet.

Nobody is suggesting that he would have been just a bottle fetcher?

Suggest you should read post #1919, where Race Radio suggested EXACTLY THAT.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

What? I said above the 1990s cocktail was EPO/HGH/IGF-1/steroid hormone. Autologous blood transfusions have been used since the early 1980s. The list of riders whom have worked with Conconi, Ferrari, Fuentes alone would run into the hundreds, and the science is not that mind blowing that many other less high profile doctors could not have learnt the trade. Even the riders themselves became adept at doping methods on their own.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that many people are suggesting that wrt to GTs, LA would have been a complete nobody if it weren't for PEDs. What I am saying is that in a pro-peloton where PEDs are almost ubiquitous that would be true. However, if you take away PEDs from everyone, then LA had the genetics and determination to be a top 10 finisher, and maybe even a winner.

If you disagree then why don't you tell me where you think LA would have been relatively placed in an ideal world in which pro-cycling was completely clean. Top 10? Top 20? Non-GC contender?

No, nobody is saying that. You are making that up.

He would have been an excellent Classics rider. I don't think there is some big mystery about that.