What changed with Armstrong Post-Cancer?

[Anonymous]

No, just enjoy watching a clean BPC for the second straight day out front riding tempo against a bunch of know dopes(sic - dopers). Praying for the second coming of Martin Jackson won't make it July either.

...says the boy with chamois cream on his nose...

 

[RHitaliano]

I know this topic is just begging for a troll war, but it would be nice to hear some considered answers.

I think it's generally agreed that Lance was a pretty good one-day rider before his bout with cancer and that he was unlikely to win a grand tour. Based on Betsy Andreu and others, it is has also been established that pre-cancer he was on a pretty intense regimen of EPO, HGH, Steroids, Testosterone, etc. In spite of all this doping, he was still a non-factor in the grand tours. It has also been established that he didn't really lose as much (or any) of the weight that he once claimed to lose during his fight with cancer.

So the question is, what did Lance start doing differently from 1999 on? It can't just be doping with all the same stuff he used pre-cancer because it didn't really work then (beyond winning a few stages). Was he not doing blood transfusions pre-'99 and that put him over the edge? I don't remember hearing if that was something he did pre-'99 or not. Is there something else out there he (and Ferrari) discovered? or is it just a matter of him and the Postal team taking it to a more organized level?

"what changed with Armstrong Post-Cancer?"

Very easy question for power calc scientist such as meself.

1. His Heart became huge like the great pumpkin from charlie brown episode.

2. He create super fast spinning cycle for garage training and transfer this to the trek madone on road.

3. while spinning chris comical his coach noticed his body no longer makes lactic acid in tissue.

4. they phoned up another great cycing scientist named ferra something who helped previously.

 

[logical cranium]

"what changed with Armstrong Post-Cancer?"

Very easy question for power calc scientist such as meself.

1. His Heart became huge like the great pumpkin from charlie brown episode.

2. He create super fast spinning cycle for garage training and transfer this to the trek madone on road.

3. while spinning chris comical his coach noticed his body no longer makes lactic acid in tissue.

4. they phoned up another great cycing scientist named ferra something who helped previously.

imposter!

I am famus NYC scientist. I will disect you're post one at a time.

1) You idiot. don't capitalize Heart. size of pumpkin exseeds phisical size of Lances tourso. I saw this charlie brown show on my special VAM TV. pumpkin climbed up into sky at VAM of 2100. pumpkin dropped diluca on motorola italy climb, and would drop contadope on Verbier. I call BS on this hypothesis.

2) no comment, i agree. a messed up clok is right 2 times a day. Madonna track bike is worth 500 VAM units.

3) charmical, not comical. duh. how does bistander see lactic acid in mussel tissue? Chris Comical was smart enough to call ferrari, that is his contribution.

4) see #3.

 

[blackcat]

The golden oldies, huh?

BPC how is the UK gonna win medals in London on the track without a medical program? Sky will have a program right? Something like die Mannschaft right? Gordie Brown going down, they could use your propaganda skills in their comms dep't

 

[BikeCentric]

Yes LA had that - world champion at 22 and a very impressive stage winner.



Lots of riders had good doctors - to believe LA was the only rider to benefit from it is silly and not credible.



This is something that you bang on about but I don't see anyone else mention it. It seems highly unlikely that LA would admit to doping in his own book - someone else would have picked it up by now. You've probably got the numbers mixed up. It wouldn't be the first time you have made mistake - we all do from time to time. But in any event its besides the point to this thread, which is why the dope only started magically working for him after cancer, and better than all the other dopers.



Straw man. The argument here is not that he doped but why he became the best tour rider of his generation after cancer when he was already taking dope before then. So far nobody has been able to offer a credible explanation relating to dope matters. The logic lies with those of us who say it was attitude, weight loss, focus and the new form of periodization training that of course is now the model for tour training and has changed tour riding forever.



Not at all - as I just said he changed the model for training for the tour. This is all on the record and recognised by coaches and commentators across the sport. They all copy the LA plan to some degree for the Tour. No conspiracy theory about it. Post cancer, he trained to win the tour for the first time - he was no longer bulked up to be a powerful one day rider. It makes sense that this would see a change in his performances for the tour, just as we have seen Wiggins change this year. If you've never trained for that goal then you can't expect to have the same results. It's like playing a different position in football.



But then you have to go back to the question of why it didn't magically make him win the tour before that point? It's the subject of the first post.



That's just a totally unfounded assertion though, isn't it. You have no evidence at all for claiming LA has "rather ordinary physiology for a professional cyclist". All the rational and logical evidence shows that he has remarkable physiology and if he focused and lost the weight a few years before he could have won about 12 ToF's by now.

I like these threads because they really flush out just how weak some of the arguments against Armstrong are. Once they've done the straw man about him doping then there isn't anything left there to explain their theory that he would be an also-ran for some reason. Nothing at all. In fact in a dope free peloton the logic points to him still being the best for those years.

BanProCycling is Lance Armstrong.

 

[BikeCentric]

Rhubroma, to go from being a civilian to an elite pro cyclist who is competing in the GC level of a grand actually takes a couple of years of training. Nobody does it in their first year. Why do you think you never see 18 to 20 year olds winning it? You have to layer up the fitness in stages and build reserves of stamina to get it at the very peak - it just can't be done in a month from someone out of the sport for years. But he was doing this at 37. Plus once at the Tour he was careful not to take any risks and certainly was not trying in the last few days. His blood results were also clean, and he still came 12th against a bunch of CERA cheats!

Come on.

Even if the case of blood doping during the ToF is correct - which I don't think it is - it's still very marginal. To get third against people with crits much closer to 50 in some cases is astonishing. Next year he will do even better - I can assure you. The guy is a legend in his own right - it's all there to see.

This is hilarious. A *** who doesn't know jack **** about racing bikes talking down to Rhumbroma (a guy who raced semi-pro in Italy just this past summer) like a child about how to prepare the body for the transition to becoming a pro cyclist. This is comedy gold.

 

[Anonymous]

What changed with Armstrong Post-Cancer?

He got a better doping program. You guys act like this is rocket science or something.

 

[BikeCentric]

but then...



You change your mind quickly.

Indeed, I did change my mind after reading the next post by you which revealed you to be a moron and a vacuous fanboy. However, I also think Armstrong is of small mental faculty (with decent political/PR instincts) although he obviously knows a lot about cycling. Cycling is not rocket science, as a matter of fact it's a sport that stupid people can excel at, i.e. "me turn pedals hard, smash with shoulder and elbow riders that get in my line and do whatever DS and Doctor tells me."

 

[logical cranium]

Indeed, I did change my mind after reading the next post by you which revealed you to be a moron and a vacuous fanboy. However, I also think Armstrong is of small mental faculty (with decent political/PR instincts) although he obviously knows a lot about cycling. Cycling is not rocket science, as a matter of fact it's a sport that stupid people can excel at, i.e. "me turn pedals hard, smash with shoulder and elbow riders that get in my line and do whatever DS and Doctor tells me."

Hay. you sure are a big person behind the keybord. I bet you wouldn't say that to Lances face. Anybody that can climb with vam of 2300 can smash your insults lol.

 

[BikeCentric]

Yes he dropped back to help Leipy, and played the domestique role on other stages, going back to the car for the water bottles. He could have finished even higher. In the last week he was desperately trying to avoid injury and was not putting the effort in, making sure he built up to fitness gradually the way they are told to - not going into the red. If we consider his blood profile is really good for that tour, and all the other factors, it shows you just how naturally good the man is at tour riding.

Stop making things up. Those of us who actually watched the Giro saw Armstrong digging deep on Vesuvious (in the last week) to solo bridge up to the lead group of climbers. You aren't going to BS anyone here. I suppose you must just be a troll and therefore I'll stop insulting you and put you on the ignore list from now on.

 

[The Executioner]

Q: What changed with Armstrong after cancer?

A: More EPO.

 

[Ripper]

Q: What changed with Armstrong after cancer?

A: More EPO.

Sir, you are incorrect

 

[Ripper]

Q: What changed with Armstrong after cancer?

A: More EPO.

It is not more EPO, it is better and more refined EPO, along with some other fun sh!t