• 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 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
hrotha said:
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.

I agree with your assessment, I think the big problem with EPO is that it distorted the sport.

As I said earlier I dont think its about the better programme, its about who responed best. Honestly I think that Ferrari was the best at co-ordinating training with the usage of EPO to focus on specific objectives. Why was he the best? I dont know, I am not a scientist but if he was regarded as the best, then there had to be something.

Before Lance, he had a range of clients and it cannot have been easy to manage a varied group of talents. If Lance had access to Ferrari exclusively, I can see how that would be more effective. The other big factor is that Lance and his team targeted one race which narrows the variables a lot.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Cobblestoned said:
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

I see you're back addressing posters rather than their posts.

Who actually ever said that Lance had no talent?
The only person ever to make that claim was you when you were addressing others.

If you have something to refute the claims here - I suggest showing it, rather than claiming victory for something no-one suggested.
 
forty four said:
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.

Care to address the Riis v Skibby conundrum I posed earlier.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
The Hitch said:
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?

Considering how Lance rode away from the field in tdfs during the doping era i have no doubt he had a better doping programme but how did he get this and why didnt others get it?

Great questions, The Hitch!
Like Speedway, I am looking forward to the responses.
Maybe Wonderlance will have to save the day?

Anyway, EPO is EPO, Dr Ferarri did NOT have access to a special vintage.

And the only thing special about the blood transfused was that it belonged to Lance in the first place.

But, does not a Master Chef work with the same ingredients as a less talented chef. Does not a Maestro work with the same notes as a lessor conductor?

The Great Ones possess knowledge. Exquisite knowledge about measurements and timing. Extremely rare talents that demand top dollar/euro.

All that said, to conclude that Lance was transformed by a programme from a Donkey into a Thoroughbred is just daft. Even a master chef cannot turn donkey meat into filet mignon.
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,263
1
0
Visit site
Mellow Velo said:
Looks like Germany has come up with it's own version of Arbiter/BPC.:rolleyes:
Forget evidence. When in doubt, condescension out.
Bored? You bet.

I read that BPC thread because I didnt know what some of you were talking about, but not very far. I´ll continue and then give you confirmation or not. :D
You can be happy that the german haters have not yet arrived here.

Some of you guys would only appear as a shadow of themselves, after all your glory was stolen by them.
 
pmcg76 said:
I agree with your assessment, I think the big problem with EPO is that it distorted the sport.

As I said earlier I dont think its about the better programme, its about who responed best. Honestly I think that Ferrari was the best at co-ordinating training with the usage of EPO to focus on specific objectives. Why was he the best? I dont know, I am not a scientist but if he was regarded as the best, then there had to be something.

Before Lance, he had a range of clients and it cannot have been easy to manage a varied group of talents. If Lance had access to Ferrari exclusively, I can see how that would be more effective. The other big factor is that Lance and his team targeted one race which narrows the variables a lot.
Agreed. I suppose there's also the fact that if you hired Ferrari you'd also be paying for the "brand", since he had made such a name for himself so he could afford to charge more for his services than other coaches that perhaps weren't objectively less competent.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Visit site
Cobblestoned said:
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.

Lance was a very pitiful rider till the uber doktors taught him to ride 800k per year, now how many TREKs flooded e bay to achieve that?
Oh what a dush that Lance was. I could be quicker with Lances medicine than Lance was in 99. I am 56 yrs. Frederik von Taylorstein epic poster
 
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.
Just echoing a great post. Sums it up nicely.
 
Jul 23, 2009
2,891
1
0
Visit site
flicker said:
Lance was a very pitiful rider till the uber doktors taught him to ride 800k per year, now how many TREKs flooded e bay to achieve that?
Oh what a dush that Lance was. I could be quicker with Lances medicine than Lance was in 99. I am 56 yrs. Frederik von Taylorstein epic poster
Just keeping taking your own medicine flickah and everything will be alright. :D
 
Jul 23, 2009
2,891
1
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. ;)
It is painfully clear from this guy's first post that he came here not to debate the topic, but to attack individuals. He hasn't responded to some pretty clear questions asked of him, don't expect to get the debate you seek. He saw the word 'Lance' and figured it was time to roll out the talking points. As Boeing said, boring.
 
Cloxxki said:
Just echoing a great post. Sums it up nicely.

Exactly, the OP asked what was the program Lance was on. Its about how people respond to the program they are on and how it is perfected. I dont think anyone suggested Lance was talentless, just that he was not a talented GT rider.

It was Cobblestoned who suggested that once everyone was doping, the playing field was level so it goes back to talent and that donkeys couldnt be made into Tour winners. Riis was then brought up and we have yet to see any explanation as to how Riis went from being a donkey into a Tour winner other than being a good responder to EPO.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
Mongol_Waaijer said:
There is a lot in this issue of how well different individuals respond to doping.

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.

.

You have not given an answer to the original question:

What made it the best program?
It is understandable if you do not know lol.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
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'.

Access and application set Dr Ferrari apart from Dr Punta?

But Dr Punta had access to the Festina riders correct?

And what made Dr Ferrari's applications better than Dr Punta's applications?
THAT is the question The Hitch is asking.
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Visit site
Polish said:
Access and application set Dr Ferrari apart from Dr Punta?

But Dr Punta had access to the Festina riders correct?

And what made Dr Ferrari's applications better than Dr Punta's applications?
THAT is the question The Hitch is asking.

Polish, I see you and cobblestoned have this thread taken care of. I like this cobblestoned guy. :cool:

Thanks for the entertainment!
 
ChrisE said:
Polish, I see you and cobblestoned have this thread taken care of. I like this cobblestoned guy. :cool:

Thanks for the entertainment!


Yeah, just like yourself, know jack all and ignore or dismiss evidence presented in a logical manner but offer nothing of substance to back anything up that they have to say. But somehow try to take a high and mighty 'arent they so funny' when they have nothing else to offer.

I think there is a word for these types of posters...
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Polish said:
Access and application set Dr Ferrari apart from Dr Punta?

But Dr Punta had access to the Festina riders correct?

And what made Dr Ferrari's applications better than Dr Punta's applications?
THAT is the question The Hitch is asking.
Was "Dr.Punto" a hematologist?

Dr. Rijkaert would not let the riders blood haematocrit level go above 53-54%.

Here is part of Dr.Ferrari's list:
15.12.94 - 24.5.95
Vladislav Bobrik (Rus) : 42.7 à 53
Bruno Cenghialta (Ita): 37.2 à 54.5
Francesco Frattini (Ita) : 46 à 54
Furlan Giorgio (Ita) : 38.8 à 51
Nicola Minali (Ita) : 41.7 à 54
Piotr Ugrumov (Rus) : 32.8 à 60
Alberto Volpi (Ita) : 38.5 à 52.6
14.1.95 - 24.5.95
Evgueni Berzin (Rus) : 41.7 à 53
14.1.95 - 9.8.95
Ivan Gotti (Ita) : 40.7 à 57
14.1.95 - 10.7.95
Bjarne Riis (Dan) : 41.1 à 56.3
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Visit site
pmcg76 said:
Yeah, just like yourself, know jack all and ignore or dismiss evidence presented in a logical manner but offer nothing of substance to back anything up that they have to say. But somehow try to take a high and mighty 'arent they so funny' when they have nothing else to offer.

I think there is a word for these types of posters...

I could say the same thing about you, but I won't. :D
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
Was "Dr.Punto" a hematologist?

Dr. Rijkaert would not let the riders blood haematocrit level go above 53-54%.

Here is part of Dr.Ferrari's list:
15.12.94 - 24.5.95
Vladislav Bobrik (Rus) : 42.7 à 53
Bruno Cenghialta (Ita): 37.2 à 54.5
Francesco Frattini (Ita) : 46 à 54
Furlan Giorgio (Ita) : 38.8 à 51
Nicola Minali (Ita) : 41.7 à 54
Piotr Ugrumov (Rus) : 32.8 à 60
Alberto Volpi (Ita) : 38.5 à 52.6
14.1.95 - 24.5.95
Evgueni Berzin (Rus) : 41.7 à 53
14.1.95 - 9.8.95
Ivan Gotti (Ita) : 40.7 à 57
14.1.95 - 10.7.95
Bjarne Riis (Dan) : 41.1 à 56.3

Was there monitoring for hemo for all of these values? The Geweiss domination period was notable for virtually no testing but plenty of suspicious performances. Did Ferrari know that there was increased output value to be above 50? Bobrik and Berzin had notable jumps in GC ability but Urgumov had the highest increase in blood values.
This does look like an experimental period with the variety of increases above natural hematocrit.
 

jimmypop

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

Nice! I'll play along:

Poor Cobblestoned. Didn't have an effective education and couldn't read at the level of his peers, even with his superbduperextraordinary ability to mash at the keyboard and click the "Submit Reply" button.

You're putting in a decent effort, and I like the touch you've added with the stunted English. My feeling is that your German is also stunted, adversely affected by the same head injury that's causing you to believe that doping was a level playing field when Armstrong was in the game.
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
Visit site
Polish said:
You have not given an answer to the original question:

What made it the best program?
It is understandable if you do not know lol.
You answered the question yourself one page ago.

The Great Ones possess knowledge. Exquisite knowledge about measurements and timing. Extremely rare talents that demand top dollar/euro.
 
I admire the way the average fanboy can employ a "shifting defence", of their idol.
They appear to experience no difficulty in seamlessly shifting their stance from "Lance was clean", to "Lance was dirty, but his programme was standard, off the shelf, issue."

Even back in the days of amphetamines, top pros would spend more on their medicine chest, than the average domestique earned in 3 years.
Tom Simpson being the best documented example.

Lance invested his Cofidis settlement wisely.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Mellow Velo said:
I admire the way the average fanboy can employ a "shifting defence", of their idol.
They appear to experience no difficulty in seamlessly shifting their stance from "Lance was clean", to "Lance was dirty, but his programme was standard, off the shelf, issue."

Even back in the days of amphetamines, top pros would spend more on their medicine chest, than the average domestique earned in 3 years.
Tom Simpson being the best documented example.

Lance invested his Cofidis settlement wisely.

Yes i have noticed over the last few months how everything has gone from 'never tested positive' to 'witch hunt' to 'he was the best as they all doped and it was a level playing field' a slippery slope for the fanboys, wonder when they will get to the cesspit at the bottom:D
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
ultimobici said:
You answered the question yourself one page ago.

I did not answer the question any better than the others.

Sure, I agree that Dr Ferrari is goooood. A Maestro as it were.
But why??

Maybe Plato points us toward the answer when discussing "Quality":

"And what is good, Phaedrus,
And what is not good—
Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?"

Or maybe I can take the easy way out and just say that Dr Ferrari responds well to working with 7 time TdF Champions!
 
Benotti69 said:
Yes i have noticed over the last few months how everything has gone from 'never tested positive' to 'witch hunt' to 'he was the best as they all doped and it was a level playing field' a slippery slope for the fanboys, wonder when they get to the cesspit at the bottom:D

I don't think they'll go beyond this point - oh for the days when they all consoled themselves with the 'never tested positive'.:rolleyes:
 
Polish said:
I did not answer the question any better than the others.

Sure, I agree that Dr Ferrari is goooood. A Maestro as it were.
But why??

Maybe Plato points us toward the answer:

"And what is good, Phaedrus,
And what is not good—
Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?"

Or maybe I can take the easy way out and just say that Dr Ferrari responds well to working with 7 time TdF Champions!

Including plato in an answer like this.

Love it :D