• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

What gave Lance the better programme?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 5, 2009
696
1
0
Visit site
Lance was just better and maybe had a slight advantage of pre-announced tests. I can't stand the guy, but let's face it. He was mentally the strongest, had a strong team and was lucky never be caught in a serious crash or similar.

I don't think he had a better programme than any other of the top 10 contenders. He was just the best and luckiest of them. Hard to swallow (also for me), but that's it.
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,263
1
0
Visit site
pmcg76 said:
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.

You make your own rules !

"There is no right to win a GT, if there hadn´t been any decent big results at the beginning of the career in a GT." :D
 
Cobblestoned said:
You make your own rules !

"There is no right to win a GT, if there hadn´t been any decent big results at the beginning of the career in a GT." :D

Whar rules are they, the same that most of the cycling world follow. You know when Riis won the Tour, one of the headlines in a magazine on his career was "the Fall and Rise of Bjarne Riis", even they couldnt fathom or explain, well they probably could but that was pre Festina so ometra still was in full power.

If a rider has the talent, it shouldnt take 6 or 7 years to show, simple as that. Riis never had any physical problems or restrictions he suddenly overcame. It simply defies logic.
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,263
1
0
Visit site
pmcg76 said:
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.

Bored again.
Now you talk like I had the illusion as if Lance was clean.
I just go against the illusion that Lance just doped more and was a donkey.
Can´t you see that ? Thats just bull****. And you talk as if Bjarne was the only cyclist jumping onto the EPO-train and is an absolute donkey.

Come on, I am a German guy and early Ullrichsupporter and should scream the loudest and hardest at Lance. But I don´t do that. That doesn´t match some peoples simple concept. I know.

You bonked heavily and start getting desperate ! :D
 
Cobblestoned said:
Bored again.
Now you talk like I had the illusion as if Lance was clean.
I just go against the illusion that Lance just doped more and was a donkey.
Can´t you see that ? Thats just bull****. And you talk as if Bjarne was the only cyclist jumping onto the EPO-train.

Come on, I am a German guy and early Ullrichsupporter and should scream the loudest and hardest at Lance. But I don´t do that. That doesn´t match some peoples simple concept. I know.

You bonked heavily and start getting desperate ! :D

Now you are just showing your lack of comprehension, I never said Riis was the only one on EPO. I gave the example of Skibby was far better than Riis before EPO but when they both went on EPO, Riis turned into a superstar whilst Skibby was just a good rider.

If people want to believe if everyone is on drugs are equal, then thats BS which you are suggesting. Its about who is the better responder, who has the better program etc. Please explain the difference between Skibby and Riis. Simple question really.
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,263
1
0
Visit site
la.margna said:
Lance was just better and maybe had a slight advantage of pre-announced tests. I can't stand the guy, but let's face it. He was mentally the strongest, had a strong team and was lucky never be caught in a serious crash or similar.

I don't think he had a better programme than any other of the top 10 contenders. He was just the best and luckiest of them. Hard to swallow (also for me), but that's it.

+1

Just strong in every kind and lucky :D
Thats it.
 

jimmypop

BANNED
Jul 16, 2010
376
1
0
Visit site
Cobblestoned said:
+1

Just strong in every kind and lucky :D
Thats it.

Sort of. Lucky, also, that he responded so well to the treatment's Ferrari outlined for him. Some don't respond well to similar treatments, and it's why you can't say the playing field was level. Well, you *can* say that, but only if you're blinded by the glimmer of Sir Lance.

He's a superb natural talent, no doubt. But it also seems that he had an exclusive, carefully monitored and effective doping program. To say otherwise is to extend the rationalization that "everyone doped", and the only reason to do that is so you can continue to wear silly yellow wristbands and keep your avatar photos.
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,263
1
0
Visit site
pmcg76 said:
Now you are just showing your lack of comprehension, I never said Riis was the only one on EPO. I gave the example of Skibby was far better than Riis before EPO but when they both went on EPO, Riis turned into a superstar whilst Skibby was just a good rider.

If people want to believe if everyone is on drugs are equal, then thats BS which you are suggesting. Its about who is the better responder, who has the better program etc. Please explain the difference between Skibby and Riis. Simple question really.

Too many factors in cycling and peoples lifes.
Thats why I dont like comparing and filleting riders. There is no sense and basis in that.

You can compare cars, but not human beeings.
But there are surely 100 examples that prove the opposite of what you are trying to say. Same goes for me. :cool:

The truth is not leased by anyone of us. But we can´t go forward if one person says: "Thats black" and the other person says: "Thats white"

I am just missing the grey shade.
 
Cobblestoned said:
+1

Just strong in every kind and lucky :D
Thats it.

So Cobblestoned....Frankie Andreu went across the border to Switzerland and took EPO for one tour. Do you think a box of EPO, is the same as a doping programme designed by Ferrari? Do you honestly think it has the same efficacy as a programme which contains EPO, blood doping, HGH and coriticoids?
 
pmcg76 said:
Now you are just showing your lack of comprehension, I never said Riis was the only one on EPO. I gave the example of Skibby was far better than Riis before EPO but when they both went on EPO, Riis turned into a superstar whilst Skibby was just a good rider.

If people want to believe if everyone is on drugs are equal, then thats BS which you are suggesting. Its about who is the better responder, who has the better program etc. Please explain the difference between Skibby and Riis. Simple question really.
Skibby rode for TVM, not for Ariostea and Gewiss, so I guess that counts for something, physiological differences between him and Riis aside.

edit: just to be clear, I'm not saying Italian teams trained better, just that they "prepared" better.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
la.margna said:
Lance was just better and maybe had a slight advantage of pre-announced tests. I can't stand the guy, but let's face it. He was mentally the strongest, had a strong team and was lucky never be caught in a serious crash or similar.

I don't think he had a better programme than any other of the top 10 contenders. He was just the best and luckiest of them. Hard to swallow (also for me), but that's it.

Actually this goes back to the OP question - the difference is not in the PEDs or quantity - it is in the access and application.

We also know that the riders on Fuentes list were visiting him - while with Ferrari he went with the athletes.
Ferrari was with Armstrong in Austin, Girona, Tenerife, France and Switzerland while LA was training.
Having a hematologist while training is not 'lucky'.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Cobblestoned, you are not making any reasoned debate as to LA being the best. Evidence suggests otherwise and as long as you choose to ignore it you will look like the love sick fanboy you come across.

When Jonathan Vaughter's left USPS and went to Cofidis he was expecting the daily injections and other PEDs as he was getting at USPS, but was astounded when he got nothing, LA had told all the riders that what USPS were doing was what all the other teams did. So there lies the answer, USPS did way more than the others all the time. Why? because LA demanded it!

So work out what PEDs the pro peleton were doing at the time and USPS took more than the others and more often. Why? they financed it with bikes, wages and bonuses. They had a dictator running the team, where i imagine that other teams couldn't afford to operate in the same manner and probably did not think in the same manner as they still had a whole season to race in and try to achieve results as demanded by sponsors and riders wanting to win. They had multiple goals. LA had 1 and the team were geared to that 1. it was no big secret, but i imagine LA took greater risks with the PEDs than others were willing in that era.
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,263
1
0
Visit site
jimmypop said:
Sort of. Lucky, also, that he responded so well to the treatment's Ferrari outlined for him. Some don't respond well to similar treatments, and it's why you can't say the playing field was level. Well, you *can* say that, but only if you're blinded by the glimmer of Sir Lance.

He's a superb natural talent, no doubt. But it also seems that he had an exclusive, carefully monitored and effective doping program. To say otherwise is to extend the rationalization that "everyone doped", and the only reason to do that is so you can continue to wear silly yellow wristbands and keep your avatar photos.

poor Ullrich
Didn´t have an effective and carefully monitored doping program and couldn´t compensate the gap to Lance even with his superbduperextraordinary natural Talentalent and his doped team.
Stupid Germans.
 
Cobblestoned said:
Too many factors in cycling and peoples lifes.
Thats why I dont like comparing and filleting riders. There is no sense and basis in that.

You can compare cars, but not human beeings.
But there are surely 100 examples that prove the opposite of what you are trying to say. Same goes for me. :cool:

The truth is not leased by anyone of us. But we can´t go forward if one person says: "Thats black" and the other person says: "Thats white"

I am just missing the grey shade.


Then provide us with the examples to the contrary.

The fact is EPO distorted the sport so much it is impossible to say what was/is real or not. I believe Lance was more doped tham most others in 99 and was lucky and once the UCI seen the furore surrounding his success, he automatically became a protected species. More so than Ullrich, Zulle, Virenque or any of the others.
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,263
1
0
Visit site
Benotti69 said:
Cobblestoned, you are not making any reasoned debate as to LA being the best. Evidence suggests otherwise and as long as you choose to ignore it you will look like the love sick fanboy you come across.

When Jonathan Vaughter's left USPS and went to Cofidis he was expecting the daily injections and other PEDs as he was getting at USPS, but was astounded when he got nothing, LA had told all the riders that what USPS were doing was what all the other teams did. So there lies the answer, USPS did way more than the others all the time. Why? because LA demanded it!

So work out what PEDs the pro peleton were doing at the time and USPS took more than the others and more often. Why? they financed it with bikes, wages and bonuses. They had a dictator running the team, where i imagine that other teams couldn't afford to operate in the same manner and probably did not think in the same manner as they still had a whole season to race in and try to achieve results as demanded by sponsors and riders wanting to win. They had multiple goals. LA had 1 and the team were geared to that 1. it was no big secret, but i imagine LA took greater risks with the PEDs than others were willing in that era.

Do you guys know Team Telekom/T-Mobile and that whole story? :D
They selled handy´s and telephone connections for their dopingprogram. ;)

USPS and Telekom where something like a cold war. You tell me nothing new and I already know what happenend.
 
hrotha said:
Skibby rode for TVM, not for Ariostea and Gewiss, so I guess that counts for something, physiological differences between him and Riis aside.

edit: just to be clear, I'm not saying Italian teams trained better, just that they "prepared" better.

So you are saying Riis had a better program than Skibby. I dont actually believe its tham simple. I think its how people respond to EPO. Remember the story about the 98 Giro in which Festina gaveZulle a drug he didnt react to and it caused him to lose the lead.
 
pmcg76 said:
So you are saying Riis had a better program than Skibby. I dont actually believe its tham simple. I think its how people respond to EPO. Remember the story about the 98 Giro in which Festina gaveZulle a drug he didnt react to and it caused him to lose the lead.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's a combination of factors, and it's impossible to know to what extent each one of them contributed individually to the final result.

Before EPO, those factors were your genes, your training, your mentality, your diet and countless other minor factors, including your doping program. After EPO, all of that was still important, but the quality of your program and how well you responded to it became major factors, almost trumping everything else.

On the other hand, the whole point of this thread is that Ferrari's program *was* better than others, regardless of how individual riders responded to dope, so I'm not sure what we're arguing here.
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,263
1
0
Visit site
pmcg76 said:
Then provide us with the examples to the contrary.

The fact is EPO distorted the sport so much it is impossible to say what was/is real or not. I believe Lance was more doped tham most others in 99 and was lucky and once the UCI seen the furore surrounding his success, he automatically became a protected species. More so than Ullrich, Zulle, Virenque or any of the others.

Sorry, go on in believing. I am really, really tired of that now.
So go on and have fun here.
Just hate, fillet and you are fine. All YOUR dreams are on your side and the other dreamers, too.

So new insights right now:
Lance just doped more, but also had talent. Another step forward, but still along way to go - HUGHHHH ! :D
 
Jul 6, 2009
795
0
0
Visit site
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. ;)

oh good a voice of reason some what rare on here. anyways yeah la was doped like all the top guys but at his peak he was a better athlete same as the current top guys simple as that nothing magical going on.
 
Jun 16, 2009
647
0
0
Visit site
pmcg76 said:
So you are saying Riis had a better program than Skibby. I dont actually believe its tham simple. I think its how people respond to EPO. Remember the story about the 98 Giro in which Festina gave him a drug he didnt react to and it caused him to lose the lead.

There is a lot in this issue of how well different individuals respond to doping.

I believe that for much of the last 15 years genetic "talent" was replaced with "natural response to doping products". Probably equally random, and sort of "unfair" but perhaps even more advantageous to the fortunate minority.

Combine a natural strong response with the best program available, a blind eye from the authorities, and a sole focus on one race, and the Lance Armstrong phenomenon is pretty clear.

We know that in the mid to late 90's pro team scouts were looking for juniors who were riding decently with lower clean V02 max levels - these kinds could be turned into superfreaks with EPO as there was more "room to work with" as far as artificially enhancing oxygen delivery was concerned.

A clean espoir with a naturally high talent who responded poorly to a doping program, (or for whom nudging the 50% HcT limit meant only a marginal boost) would perhaps perform less well than an espoir who could win amateur races with a 39 natural HcT. Boost that guy to 49,9% in the pro ranks and you might just have the next big thing.
 
Jul 6, 2009
795
0
0
Visit site
by the standards of some on here i myself as a good cat3 could dope up and then win european stage races good to know see you all on the podium lol.
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,263
1
0
Visit site
Mongol_Waaijer said:
There is a lot in this issue of how well different individuals respond to doping.

I believe that for much of the last 15 years genetic "talent" was replaced with "natural response to doping products". Probably equally random, and sort of "unfair" but perhaps even more advantageous to the fortunate minority.

Combine a natural strong response with the best program available, a blind eye from the authorities, and a sole focus on one race, and the Lance Armstrong phenomenon is pretty clear.

We know that in the mid to late 90's pro team scouts were looking for juniors who were riding decently with lower clean V02 max levels - these kinds could be turned into superfreaks with EPO as there was more "room to work with" as far as artificially enhancing oxygen delivery was concerned.

A clean espoir with a naturally high talent who responded poorly to a doping program, (or for whom nudging the 50% HcT limit meant only a marginal boost) would perhaps perform less well than an espoir who could win amateur races with a 39 natural HcT. Boost that guy to 49,9% in the pro ranks and you might just have the next big thing.

If you think linearly that could work. :)
 
Jul 6, 2009
795
0
0
Visit site
Mongol_Waaijer said:
There is a lot in this issue of how well different individuals respond to doping.

I believe that for much of the last 15 years genetic "talent" was replaced with "natural response to doping products". Probably equally random, and sort of "unfair" but perhaps even more advantageous to the fortunate minority.

Combine a natural strong response with the best program available, a blind eye from the authorities, and a sole focus on one race, and the Lance Armstrong phenomenon is pretty clear.

We know that in the mid to late 90's pro team scouts were looking for juniors who were riding decently with lower clean V02 max levels - these kinds could be turned into superfreaks with EPO as there was more "room to work with" as far as artificially enhancing oxygen delivery was concerned.

A clean espoir with a naturally high talent who responded poorly to a doping program, (or for whom nudging the 50% HcT limit meant only a marginal boost) would perhaps perform less well than an espoir who could win amateur races with a 39 natural HcT. Boost that guy to 49,9% in the pro ranks and you might just have the next big thing.

oh well my hematocrit is 43 so no hope for me after all oh well. it is true some gain more benefits than others cunegos hematocrit is naturally around 50 none the less blood doping would still be effective for all more blood volume with not too much change to hematocrit.