• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

What gave Lance the better programme?

You often hear it said on this forum that some riders had a better programme than others. Not just Lance (though i use him because he dominated the longest), but at other points Pantain, Heras, Landis etc etc

My knowledge on doping is limited compared to others on this forum. I know epo raises the red blood cell count which helps the blood take more oxygen to the muscles, hence perform at a higher level while giving the same effort.

I know Lance used epo, at least in the beginning, and later relied more on blood transfusions.


So what gave Lance (and others) the better doping programme? did he just use more epo? if so why didnt Ullrich and Pantani and Basso etc use more epo. Did he have higher quality epo? if so how comes others never got hold of this?

All these guys had good doping programmes. Were Ullrich doctors just not that good? Wouldnt they be able to at some point during those 5 or so years where he came 2nd ask what Lance had that they didnt? Were they more concerned for their riders safety.

And during the Blood transfusion years, were they behind then also?

Where they more scared of getting caught (while Lance had his relationship with the UCI)? This might be the answer many give but it seems to me a lot of the other riders didnt have much care for their own health so would they limit the risks just because they didnt want to get caught, especially since so many were getting away with it?
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,169
0
0
Another Lance (Armstrong)-thread. Great ! :D

How did Contador and A.Schleck ride away from the rest of the doped field ?
They are just better.
Ever thought about that ? Or is it too difficult to understand that ?

How did Cav win so many TdF stages and dominate the sprints ?
Because he is just the best Sprinter.
Ever thought about that ? Or is it too difficult to understand that ?

I don´t know what your problem is. Just accept the fact that there are good and that there are better riders, who distance the others.
And all the big riders have a big, effective dopingprogramm (you have to earn and deserve that with talent, results and hard work) simular to the other BIGs.
You can´t make a donkey win the TdF just with more, better dope.


But anyway, I can already here the sound of the haters:
Lance just doped more and in reality was is without talent. ;)
 
Cobblestoned said:
Another Lance (Armstrong)-thread. Great ! :D
The original title was "What does "rider a has a better proggramme than rider b" mean", but i realised none lance threads get relegated quickly in the clinc so i worked him into the title.

Maybe the answer is that he was simply better than everyone else. But there are a number of people here who say he had a better programme, some of whom (though by no means all) know a lot about doping. The question is directed mainly at them.
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,169
0
0
The Hitch said:
The original title was "What does "rider a has a better proggramme than rider b" mean", but i realised none lance threads get relegated quickly in the clinc so i worked him into the title.

Maybe the answer is that he was simply better than everyone else. But there are a number of people here who say he had a better programme, some of whom (though by no means all) know a lot about doping. The question is directed mainly at them.
Yes, you are right. I just do a start for these "dopingexperts":

Fuentes, Cecchini and all the others are jokes and amateurs with a good mind ( they were the doctors only for the poor second row cyclists like Ullrich, Botero, Schleck and Basso etc. ) - Ferrari was da real man, he just gave Lance more, took more risks and is a bad person
 
May 10, 2009
3,654
0
0
Cobblestoned said:
Another Lance (Armstrong)-thread. Great ! :D

How did Contador and A.Schleck ride away from the rest of the doped field ?
They are just better.
Ever thought about that ? Or is it too difficult to understand that ?

How did Cav win so many TdF stages and dominate the sprints ?
Because he is just the best Sprinter.
Ever thought about that ? Or is it too difficult to understand that ?

I don´t know what your problem is. Just accept the fact that there are good and that there are better riders, who distance the others.
And all the big riders have a big, effective dopingprogramm (you have to earn and deserve that with talent, results and hard work) simular to the other BIGs.
You can´t make a donkey win the TdF just with more, better dope.


But anyway, I can already here the sound of the haters:
Lance just doped more and in reality was is without talent. ;)
Two words - Bjarne Riis.
 
Jun 16, 2009
631
0
0
Cobblestoned said:
Yes, you are right. I just do a start for these "dopingexperts":

Fuentes, Cecchini and all the others are jokes and amateurs with a good mind ( they were the doctors only for the poor second row cyclists like Ullrich, Botero, Schleck and Basso etc. ) - Ferrari was da real man, he just gave Lance more, took more risks and is a bad person
Funny how The Festina doctor was nicknamed "Dr. Punto" by the riders he prepared - as an ironic "tribute" to Dr. Ferrari.

So riders knew that Ferrari was the best preperatore.

Stranga also that Lance's deal with Ferrari forbade the preperatore from working with other teams and riders.

Strange how Tyler H thought Ferrari's program was too expensive, and settled for a cheaper but less effective one. Landis detailed that Lance was paying Ferrari 800k a year.

If quality of doping program makes such little difference why do some cost way more than others?

But yeah, some guys are just better than others, and the quality of doping program makes hardly any difference! Lance was wasting his money - he could have had some dodgy Belgian soigneur shoot up his backside for a few hundred a year and still been just as good!
 
Mongol_Waaijer said:
Funny how The Festina doctor was nicknamed "Dr. Punto" by the riders he prepared - as an ironic "tribute" to Dr. Ferrari.

So riders knew that Ferrari was the best preperatore.

Stranga also that Lance's deal with Ferrari forbade the preperatore from working with other teams and riders.

Strange how Tyler H thought Ferrari's program was too expensive, and settled for a cheaper but less effective one. Landis detailed that Lance was paying Ferrari 800k a year.

If quality of doping program makes such little difference why do some cost way more than others?

But yeah, some guys are just better than others, and the quality of doping program makes hardly any difference! Lance was wasting his money - he could have had some dodgy Belgian soigneur shoot up his backside for a few hundred a year and still been just as good!
So what made ferrari have the more expensive programmes?

More epo?
Better epo?
Less risk to health?
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,169
0
0
Mongol_Waaijer said:
Funny how The Festina doctor was nicknamed "Dr. Punto" by the riders he prepared - as an ironic "tribute" to Dr. Ferrari.

So riders knew that Ferrari was the best preperatore.

Stranga also that Lance's deal with Ferrari forbade the preperatore from working with other teams and riders.

Strange how Tyler H thought Ferrari's program was too expensive, and settled for a cheaper but less effective one. Landis detailed that Lance was paying Ferrari 800k a year.

If quality of doping program makes such little difference why do some cost way more than others?

But yeah, some guys are just better than others, and the quality of doping program makes hardly any difference! Lance was wasting his money - he could have had some dodgy Belgian soigneur shoot up his backside for a few hundred a year and still been just as good!
A yes. 800.000 lol

So why did/do many other high level riders and even footballers, tennisplayers go to Fuentes ?
Because he is a joke or what ? Makes no sense if you think about it.
Didn´t mention Dr. Punto - I talked about Fuentes and other gods of doping whose clients are/were well known and were opponents of Lance.

So just go on "Lance just doped more"-guys. You are totally lost, but I can´t help you any more. So just go on and I hope no one disturbs you.
Peace
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,169
0
0
The Hitch said:
So what made ferrari have the more expensive programmes?

More epo?
Better epo?
Less risk to health?
Of course all of that and only in Lance´s case. ;)
He didn´t really care about his other customers and had his own LA-EPO-Lab to invent the mother of all EPO - just for Lance.
 
Jun 16, 2009
631
0
0
Cobblestoned said:
A yes. 800.000 lol

So why did/do many other high level riders and even footballers, tennisplayers go to Fuentes ?
Because he is a joke or what ? Makes no sense if you think about it.
Didn´t mention Dr. Punto - I talked about Fuentes and other gods of doping whose clients are/were well known and were opponents of Lance.

So just go on "Lance just doped more"-guys. You are totally lost, but I can´t help you any more. So just go on and I hope no one disturbs you.
Peace
Lance had the best program from the undisputed expert.

It's really that simple.

There's a reason Ferrari was considered the best by the peloton, and was the most expensive. There is a reason why Lance paid him extra to stop him preparing other riders. There is a reason why many riders didn't want it to be in the public domain that they were "working with" Ferrari.

The reason is entirely obvious, and you are simply bgeing obtuse not to see it, and to childishly accuse people of irrational Lance hate. The facts are there - join the dots.
 
May 10, 2009
3,654
0
0
Cobblestoned said:
If you think Riis was a donkey, than thats your problem.
Willy Voet said that before EPO, a doped *** never won the derby. This all changed with EPO he said.
Next, Riis' career before EPO was that of a very middling domestique or journeyman. His results show this, so don't try and rewrite the history books to suit yourself.

And has been mentioned above, why did Lance not allow Ferrari work with any of his rivals if they were all going to be on the same programme anyway. Would it ever occur to you, that as messed up morally as he was, that Ferrari was actually good ay his job?
 
Jun 15, 2009
348
0
0
Can anyone address the OP's question? Hint: it's not, "Who had the better program", so could you all please shut up about that?

What makes a better - more effective, less detectable - doping program? It's an interesting question.

Anyone?

Bueller?
 
Cobblestoned said:
Another Lance (Armstrong)-thread. Great ! :D

How did Contador and A.Schleck ride away from the rest of the doped field ?
They are just better.
Ever thought about that ? Or is it too difficult to understand that ?

How did Cav win so many TdF stages and dominate the sprints ?
Because he is just the best Sprinter.
Ever thought about that ? Or is it too difficult to understand that ?

I don´t know what your problem is. Just accept the fact that there are good and that there are better riders, who distance the others.
And all the big riders have a big, effective dopingprogramm (you have to earn and deserve that with talent, results and hard work) simular to the other BIGs.
You can´t make a donkey win the TdF just with more, better dope.


But anyway, I can already here the sound of the haters:
Lance just doped more and in reality was is without talent. ;)
You obviously never heard of Bjarne Riis then:)
 
Cobblestoned said:
If you think Riis was a donkey, than thats your problem.
This is where you fail. When you are presented with evidence that contradicts your POV, you just give some off-hand dismissive comment. How about addressing the fact that Riis was a donkey for 5-6 years but somehow improved in the EPO era when he moved to Ariostea-team doctors (Conconi, Cecchini & Ferrari) and was known as Mr.60%. One thing I would agree on is that Lance was way more talented than Riis so if they could make Riis a Tour winner, I dont see why they couldnt turn a more talented guy into a 7 time winner.
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,169
0
0
pmcg76 said:
You obviously never heard of Bjarne Riis then:)
I know him werrie well, because he rode next to Jan and was not unknown before his Tourvictory. Had good results and a good developement.
You can´t say that he is a donkey, right. But nothing seems unimpossible in this place right here.

Just look at his results, mate. ;)

Another argument: With 60 %, Lance would have been caught immediately in his era.

Boring me again. We need a "tired"-smilie
 
powerste said:
Can anyone address the OP's question? Hint: it's not, "Who had the better program", so could you all please shut up about that?

What makes a better - more effective, less detectable - doping program? It's an interesting question.

Anyone?

Bueller?
Persoanlly, I dont think many people really know but I dont think its as much about the actual program as how individuals react to the program they are put on. Its about who is the better responder.

Lets take two Danish pros, Jesper Skibby & Bjarne Riis, both turned pro with small Belgian teams in 86. Skibby showed some promise finishing top 5 in Tour TTs in 87 whilst Riis floundered. Both then went onto EPO in the 90s, Riis went onto win the Tour whilst Skibby was just a good solid pro, never came near being a Tour contender. Anyone care to explain that one.
 
Jun 16, 2009
631
0
0
pmcg76 said:
You obviously never heard of Bjarne Riis then:)
Paul Kimmage said in Rough Ride that Riis didn't even look good enough to be a pro when he first joined the international peloton....

to the OP:

Clearly the "best" program is a finely tuned blend of increasing oxygen delivery through EPO, transfusions and also using hormones, steroids, insulin and f&*k knows what else to maximise power output and endurance. I guess the more expertise your preperatore has, the more the drugs complement each other, the more effective the dosage amount and frequency, the safer the program is and the more targeted it is to the rider's own specific physiology and requirements. Plus such a program would have a wider selection of available products, so the medications could be mixed to ensure the best increase in performance.

This is why muppets who say that doping levels the playing field crack me up.

On the low end you have guys buying stuff themselves from Swiss pharmacies or online, and shooting it up with only word of mouth peer knowledge as a guideline.

The best program avialable was Ferrari - and the difference between the two is about as clear as riding off the front alone in a yellow jersey, and dropping off the back with the also rans.
 
Cobblestoned said:
I know him werrie well, because he rode next to Jan and was not unknown before his Tourvictory. Had good results and a good developement.
You can´t say that he is a donkey, right. But nothing seems unimpossible in this place right here.

Just look at his results, mate. ;)

Another argument: With 60 %, Lance would have been caught immediately in his era.

Boring me again. We need a "tired"-smilie
No, he started to achieve results when he moved to Ariostea in 91, he had been a pro since 1986 with only one stage win in the Giro to his name in 89. For the first 6 years of his career he never had a decent finish in a GT until he finished 5th in 93. How is that not a donkey. You are just showing yourself up with your lack of knowledge.
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,169
0
0
pmcg76 said:
This is where you fail. When you are presented with evidence that contradicts your POV, you just give some off-hand dismissive comment. How about addressing the fact that Riis was a donkey for 5-6 years but somehow improved in the EPO era when he moved to Ariostea-team doctors (Conconi, Cecchini & Ferrari) and was known as Mr.60%. One thing I would agree on is that Lance was way more talented than Riis so if they could make Riis a Tour winner, I dont see why they couldnt turn a more talented guy into a 7 time winner.
So, than start your search for the one and only very, very talented guy, who really, really earned these victorys. But he has to be clean and a niceguy, please !

Hope to hear from you !
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,169
0
0
pmcg76 said:
No, he started to achieve results when he moved to Ariostea in 91, he had been a pro since 1986 with only one stage win in the Giro to his name in 89. For the first 6 years of his career he never had a decent finish in a GT until he finished 5th in 93. How is that not a donkey. You are just showing yourself up with your lack of knowledge.
Another rider on the table to be filleted !

Who is your favorite rider ? :D I will look for his fishbones.
 
Cobblestoned said:
So, than start your search for the one and only very, very talented guy, who really, really earned these victorys. But he has to be clean and a niceguy, please !

Hope to hear from you !
And once again you simply refuse to address the facts and the evidence that are out there for everyone. As usual with your kind, you just come over all snarky when you cant address the issues.
 
Cobblestoned said:
Another rider on the table to be filleted !

Who is your favorite rider ? :D I will look for his fishbones.
Running in circles now, what is wrong with, running out of BS.

I dont have favourite riders, havent had any since forever I liked Charly Mottet when i first started following the sport, the Irsh guys Kelly, Roche, Earley also but I am under no illusions about their(Irish guys) doping and you wont ever see me defending them like you do with Lance.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts