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

What gave Lance the better programme?

Page 6 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 19, 2009
4,841
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
In the ceaseless back-and-forth of this thread an important dynamic may have been mentioned, but probably not. A "better" doping program has the approval of the UCI.

It is now well established that the UCI plays a critical role in selecting their positives. Riders considered more valuable to the UCI show are given very wide berth.

A rider can dope with impunity when he knows the UCI won't announce a positive against him. A rider can institute a doping program for an entire team with confidence because he and his DS knows the riders critical to adding to the string of TdF wins won't get sanctioned.

I'm convinced that most of this thread is more noise to obfuscate some basic facts about doping in the UCI peloton, than it is an actual query for information.
Agreed. Notice of testing events would be the single biggest advantage a rider could have.
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,745
0
0
The Hitch said:
But how do you know Lance went to the Canaletto and others didnt. Sure Ferrari was a known as a good doctor but my question is for more specifics as to what Lance was given by Ferrari that others didnt get.

So forget about brushes, what variable did Ferrari give Lance get that his competitors didnt get
What I understand to have happened -

Initially LA was just one of Ferrari's clients
Pretty early on LA engaged him on an exclusive basis
Ferrari is acknowledged to be one of the best prepatore

So if Ferrari was only working with LA, Ullrich, to single out one opponent, would have had to make do with another prepatore. They may not have been as well versed in the methods & practices necessary to elicit the best results, hence the disparity.

While the manipulation of blood is a scientific endeavour, there are still little nuances that have the potential to make a significant contribution. And that knowledge may be the difference between the top step of the podium and 2nd place.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
Merckx index said:
Blutto – for cyclists, which is the main subject of this forum, not to mention of the post of yours I was responding to, blood doping is the name of the game. If you know other PEDs that make a huge difference in cycling performance, I would be very interested to hear of them. Steroids, testosterone and amphetamines definitely do not make the grade. They may provide a little help, but nowhere near as much as blood doping (including EPO).

It may be that LA had access to some indetectable form of blood doping. PFC, an artificial oxygen vector, could be something worth looking into, as there is no test for it, and it's excreted through the lungs, not the urine. But this is not a matter of masking, just using an indetectable agent.

MV – I fail to see what a book on Tom Simpson has to say about LA’s program. I'm not going to buy the book to find out. If "it's all in there", how about a quote or two?

Python – I doubt LA would admit to much in the SCA hearings, but as I said to MV, I would be most interested to see this evidence of an exclusive deal, if it really exists. I'm not denying it could have happened, I just want to see the evidence. The fact that no one on this forum has yet been able to provide such evidence suggests that if it does exist, it is well hidden. It is definitely not "out there" in the way that the evidence for doping is.
...someone in another thread is challenging the sacred EPO is God dogma(see below)...

"I've heard that doping( I assume he is talking about epo) can get a rider an extra 3% increase in performance. Doesn't sound like much, but over 150+ KMs that small percentage could make all the difference. Then there's doping targeted at recovery, which could produce bigger gains than the 3%. "

...if I were you I'd head over there right now before this becomes a competing religion...bah, heretics, burning at the stake is too good for them, but its a start...

Cheers

blutto
 
Barnaby said:
Sheesh :rolleyes: Look NO-ONE on this board can answer your need for specifics. ONLY FERRARI, LANCE AND BRUYNEEL KNOW and they are hardly likely to tell you are they?
some people have given intelligent answers (like the post below yours)

And if no one knows what Ferrari gave Lance then there is no way to know that Lance had the better programme?

So if you cant answer that asnwer me this. How do you (those who say Lance had the better programe) know that Lance had the better proggrame?
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,370
0
0
So does it just come down to the idea that because Lance was working with Ferrari, and had a big transformation from pre-cancer racing to post-cancer racing that he MUST have had a better program?

Or do people think that he could have had a program equivalent to many other riders, but some part of his physiology caused him to get more of a benefit from a similar program to others?

Is there any evidence that his program was superior to the average contender... that guys like Ulrich/Zulle/Patani/Mayo were getting less efective stuff... aside from results on the bike?


Obviously he doped... but I've always come down on the side of "they all doped... so who cares". I'm open to adjusting my view on it... but showing what Lance took/was caught with doesn't indicate if it was different from the other GC contenders.
 
Feb 10, 2010
8,095
0
0
End it Already

The Hitch said:
some people have given intelligent answers (like the post below yours)

And if no one knows what Ferrari gave Lance then there is no way to know that Lance had the better programme?

So if you cant answer that asnwer me this. How do you (those who say Lance had the better programe) know that Lance had the better proggrame?

The details of what exactly was provided to Pharmstrong is a moot point.

There is an obvious way to know Lance had the better program, unbelievable Watts/kg for almost the entire squad.

Another consistent, clear, concise reply.

What do you hope to achieve by ignoring all replies AND churning the same question over and over again?
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,745
0
0
kurtinsc said:
So does it just come down to the idea that because Lance was working with Ferrari, and had a big transformation from pre-cancer racing to post-cancer racing that he MUST have had a better program?

Or do people think that he could have had a program equivalent to many other riders, but some part of his physiology caused him to get more of a benefit from a similar program to others?

Is there any evidence that his program was superior to the average contender... that guys like Ulrich/Zulle/Patani/Mayo were getting less efective stuff... aside from results on the bike?


Obviously he doped... but I've always come down on the side of "they all doped... so who cares". I'm open to adjusting my view on it... but showing what Lance took/was caught with doesn't indicate if it was different from the other GC contenders.
It's not necessarily that he was on anything different chemically than Ulrich/Zulle/Patani/Mayo, rather that the haematologist was more skilled in applying it.
EPO & blood manipulation in training is not necessarily a magic bullet with a straight formula

EPO + HGH + 1000km/wk = 15%

Accurate timing of the dosage and a training plan that works in tandem is necessary too. If either element is off then the results are not as good as they might have been.
 
Feb 10, 2010
8,095
0
0
It's Over

kurtinsc said:
So does it just come down to the idea that because Lance was working with Ferrari, and had a big transformation from pre-cancer racing to post-cancer racing that he MUST have had a better program?

Or do people think that he could have had a program equivalent to many other riders, but some part of his physiology caused him to get more of a benefit from a similar program to others?

Is there any evidence that his program was superior to the average contender... that guys like Ulrich/Zulle/Patani/Mayo were getting less efective stuff... aside from results on the bike?


Obviously he doped... but I've always come down on the side of "they all doped... so who cares". I'm open to adjusting my view on it... but showing what Lance took/was caught with doesn't indicate if it was different from the other GC contenders.
The kind of detail you are looking for doesn't add anything to the basic fact Armstrong and Co. fraudulently collected the TdF titles. Not only are the titles fraudulent, profiting from the sick and dead in the course of pumping up the myth is not a controversial view. (anymore, thankfully)

Maybe this kind of searching for some thread of goodness in the Armstrong myth is part of the 'adjusting process' for you. Nothing good will come from keeping even parts of the myth alive.
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,370
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
The kind of detail you are looking for doesn't add anything to the basic fact Armstrong and Co. fraudulently collected the TdF titles. Not only are the titles fraudulent, profiting from the sick and dead in the course of pumping up the myth is not a controversial view. (anymore, thankfully)

Maybe this kind of searching for some thread of goodness in the Armstrong myth is part of the 'adjusting process' for you. Nothing good will come from keeping even parts of the myth alive.
Look, I'm fairly indifferent on Armstrong, but it's hard for me to say that Ullrich deserved titles because Armstrong doped... because we know Ullrich doped too. Yes... Armstrong cheated. It's pretty clear to any observer who'll open their eyes that he did. But how can you get upset about the doping when many if not all behind doped as well?

Look at 2003:

1 Lance Armstrong (USA) - doper
2 Jan Ullrich (GER) - doper
3 Alexander Vinokourov (KAZ) - doper
4 Tyler Hamilton (USA) - doper
5 Haimar Zubeldia (ESP) - ??? has spent some years with Armstrong... not sure I want to give him the benefit of the doubt.
6 Iban Mayo (ESP) - doper
7 Ivan Basso (ITA) - doper
8 Christophe Moreau (FRA) - doper
9 Carlos Sastre (ESP) - ??? no direct links... but givent he history of Riis and CSC... who knows?
10 Francisco Mancebo (ESP) - doper

It really looks like a scenario where despite the acknowledged doping... you may just have to say that it was a "doping era" and just view the field as being pretty much even... and take the results at face value.

Now if Lance clearly had an advantage over other dopers... maybe it should be viewed differently.
 
Jun 15, 2009
348
0
0
kurtinsc said:
It really looks like a scenario where despite the acknowledged doping... you may just have to say that it was a "doping era" and just view the field as being pretty much even... and take the results at face value.
Yep - there's no point in stripping titles since God knows where the clean riders are in the results (if there are any clean riders there at all).
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,169
0
0
Just wanted to add some halftime standings :

After all the strange attempts were douched, now the common tactics seem to be to build up differences between: a doper/client and other dopers/clients of this dopingring of fire, followed by telling the fairy tale of the one and only goodresponder - and all the other badresponders.

But the OP´s main questions are still not answered. One party still has answers/facts to give. ;)
 
May 10, 2009
3,654
0
0
Cobblestoned said:
Just wanted to add some halftime standings :

After all the strange attempts were douched, now the common tactics seem to be to build up differences between: a doper/client and other dopers/clients of this dopingring of fire, followed by telling the fairy tale of the one and only goodresponder - and all the other badresponders.

But the OP´s main questions are still not answered. One party still has answers/facts to give. ;)
Just because you don't want to accept the answers, does not mean they have not been given.
 
May 13, 2009
3,042
0
0
The Hitch said:
So what made ferrari have the more expensive programmes?

More epo?
Better epo?
Less risk to health?
I haven't read the thread, so maybe it has been answered already in the previous 11 pages, but the most straightforward plug for a more expensive and more efficient doping regime is individualization. It's not more EPO or better (different?) EPO both of which would imply greater health risks.

Simply, humans react differently to drugs. You can either take the recommended standard dose and hope it works for you, or you could draw samples every so often, let them be analyzed and tweak your individual regime. Individualization is expensive. You have to pay for the lab tests (those Sysmex machines ain't cheap), the physician has to look over those test results, your training efforts and adjust dose etc. It's probably making a difference. How much of a difference, I don't know.
 
Aug 6, 2009
1,926
0
0
kurtinsc said:
Look, I'm fairly indifferent on Armstrong, but it's hard for me to say that Ullrich deserved titles because Armstrong doped... because we know Ullrich doped too. Yes... Armstrong cheated. It's pretty clear to any observer who'll open their eyes that he did. But how can you get upset about the doping when many if not all behind doped as well?

Look at 2003:

1 Lance Armstrong (USA) - doper
2 Jan Ullrich (GER) - doper
3 Alexander Vinokourov (KAZ) - doper
4 Tyler Hamilton (USA) - doper
5 Haimar Zubeldia (ESP) - ??? has spent some years with Armstrong... not sure I want to give him the benefit of the doubt.
6 Iban Mayo (ESP) - doper
7 Ivan Basso (ITA) - doper
8 Christophe Moreau (FRA) - doper
9 Carlos Sastre (ESP) - ??? no direct links... but givent he history of Riis and CSC... who knows?
10 Francisco Mancebo (ESP) - doper

It really looks like a scenario where despite the acknowledged doping... you may just have to say that it was a "doping era" and just view the field as being pretty much even... and take the results at face value.

Now if Lance clearly had an advantage over other dopers... maybe it should be viewed differently.
In a word, "NO" to pretty much everything you said. Offenses against the rules are not quantified by the extent in comparison to what others were doing, if one assumes the whole field was doped.

There may exist a peloton in which everyone uses the same amount of PEDs and goes at it, but neither is this playing field "level" nore does it make individual offense less egregious.

We're talking about fair play as opposed to a level playing field, two very different concepts. Armstrong isn't any less guilty because he was running amongst the same groups of thieves.

He is in fact MORE guilty due to the level of his success and all the money he stole from his off-the-bike endeavors which were predicated exclusively on two things-his survival from cancer and his riding clean.

He stole more, he lied bigger and gained more money, fame, influence and power than any cyclist ever because of his lying and cheating. Therefore yes, He IS more guilty.

The difference between a two-bit street swindler and a Bernie Madoff is in how much Madoff was able to steal and how many lives he ruined.

Both are guilty, but one is moreso due to the breadth and scope of said crimes.
 
Mar 11, 2009
3,827
0
0
C'mon guys, lets not give Dr Ferrari TOO much credit lol.

After all, Lance won Multiple TdFs WITHOUT Dr Ferrari as his coach. Right?

Pepe, now the exclusive coach for Alberto, should take some credit too:)
 
May 10, 2009
3,654
0
0
Polish said:
C'mon guys, lets not give Dr Ferrari TOO much credit lol.

After all, Lance won Multiple TdFs WITHOUT Dr Ferrari as his coach. Right?Pepe, now the exclusive coach for Alberto, should take some credit too:)
Really? Care to expand there please..........
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,169
0
0
Digger said:
Do you think all doctors in medicine are equally good?
Its not a question of good or not good. Its a question of knowledge and experience.
They share their knowedge and cooperate. :D

I introduced the ring of fire yesterday with surly some dottores missing.
This is proven and not my fantasie.
I should have added Conconi for the older guys, too.

But just have a look at the (definitely known) clients of Ferrari, Cecchini, Fuentes and the connections between these dottores, add some branch offices like Choina´s in Germany for example, than you have what you want.
Just have a look.
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,169
0
0
Berzin said:
In a word, "NO" to pretty much everything you said. Offenses against the rules are not quantified by the extent in comparison to what others were doing, if one assumes the whole field was doped.

There may exist a peloton in which everyone uses the same amount of PEDs and goes at it, but neither is this playing field "level" nore does it make individual offense less egregious.

We're talking about fair play as opposed to a level playing field, two very different concepts. Armstrong isn't any less guilty because he was running amongst the same groups of thieves.

He is in fact MORE guilty due to the level of his success and all the money he stole from his off-the-bike endeavors which were predicated exclusively on two things-his survival from cancer and his riding clean.

He stole more, he lied bigger and gained more money, fame, influence and power than any cyclist ever because of his lying and cheating. Therefore yes, He IS more guilty.

The difference between a two-bit street swindler and a Bernie Madoff is in how much Madoff was able to steal and how many lives he ruined.

Both are guilty, but one is moreso due to the breadth and scope of said crimes.
Thats not what we are talking about and no one really wants to glorify any doping or make it any better. Oh, wait.
There were just some people who wanted to make Armstrongs Doping greater, bigger, exclusive and baaader than his opponent´s doping and someone asked about that.

-----------------------------------------------

But when I have a look at the number of Ullrich´s lawsuits and all that time they take, Jan must be a very, very overguiltyguilty fraud and doper.
Fraud against Telekom/T-Mobile, violation of druglaw, false oathstatement, fraud to Dahms....last but not least the sporting court. tbc
Thank god that his fans didn´t sue him.

Proportionality totally lost.

But of course Lance ist most guilty - always the best.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
This thread has been busy since I was away.

Merckx index said:
Why don’t we stick to facts here? Or at least distinguish them from speculation.

Fact: Six samples tested positive for EPO.
Fact: A corticosteroid positive was allowed to pass as a TUE.
Fact: Betsy, Emma, et al. said they heard him admit to PEDs
Fact: Most of his main rivals during the seven Tours were later shown to have doped.
Fact: Most multiple TDF winners showed great promise as GT riders at a young age (early 20s).

Speculation: LA had an exclusive deal with Ferrari.
Speculation: Ferrari’s program was better than that recommended by other doctors.
Speculation: No other rider either knew that Ferrari’s program was superior, was willing to try it, or was able to buy access to it.


If anyone has any hard evidence for any of what I have called speculation--or more generally, for the premise that a group of riders all doped may be so very unequally--I would love to see it. I AM NOT saying that I don't believe these are all reasonable propositions, only that I'm not aware of any actual evidence for them.
I don't believe anyone answered your questions?!

The 'exclusive deal' with Dr. Ferrari was certainly mentioned in 'From Lance to Landis' and I am pretty sure it was mentioned in 'Lance Armstrong's War'.

The 'deal' was that Ferrari could not work with any other Tour contender - which is why both Hamilton and Landis had to set up their own programmes once they left USPS.

Dr. Ferrari spent many weeks with Armstrong before the Tour. He was in with LA in Austin, France, Tenerife, Italy, Switzerland.
While riders with Fuentes had to travel to him.

Of course others knew that "Ferrari's programme was superior" - which is why the deal to work with LA & USPS was made.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
kurtinsc said:
Look, I'm fairly indifferent on Armstrong, but it's hard for me to say that Ullrich deserved titles because Armstrong doped... because we know Ullrich doped too. Yes... Armstrong cheated. It's pretty clear to any observer who'll open their eyes that he did. But how can you get upset about the doping when many if not all behind doped as well?

Look at 2003:

1 Lance Armstrong (USA) - doper
2 Jan Ullrich (GER) - doper
3 Alexander Vinokourov (KAZ) - doper
4 Tyler Hamilton (USA) - doper

5 Haimar Zubeldia (ESP) - ??? has spent some years with Armstrong... not sure I want to give him the benefit of the doubt.
6 Iban Mayo (ESP) - doper
7 Ivan Basso (ITA) - doper
8 Christophe Moreau (FRA) - doper

9 Carlos Sastre (ESP) - ??? no direct links... but givent he history of Riis and CSC... who knows?
10 Francisco Mancebo (ESP) - doper

It really looks like a scenario where despite the acknowledged doping... you may just have to say that it was a "doping era" and just view the field as being pretty much even... and take the results at face value.

Now if Lance clearly had an advantage over other dopers... maybe it should be viewed differently.
I have highlighted the 'dopers' - which one out of them has not served a sanction?
Why is that fair? I couldn't care less if Lance's name is removed from the record books - but he should have to accept the same consequences as everyone else.
 
May 10, 2009
3,654
0
0
Cobblestoned said:
Its not a question of good or not good. Its a question of knowledge and experience.
They share their knowedge and cooperate. :D

I introduced the ring of fire yesterday with surly some dottores missing.
This is proven and not my fantasie.
I should have added Conconi for the older guys, too.

But just have a look at the (definitely known) clients of Ferrari, Cecchini, Fuentes and the connections between these dottores, add some branch offices like Choina´s in Germany for example, than you have what you want.
Just have a look
.
Is this post in code? because it's not easy to decipher.

Anyways, so Ferrari shares his knowledge with the other doping doctors. :D Enough said....if you are being deliberately obtuse and argumentative, I could somewhat see what you are trying to do - but if you really believe this stuff you write, god help us all. Conconi trained Ferrari (student teacher i mean), but they fell out by the way - why? because even Conconi said that Ferrari had no morals. Which is quite a statement when Conconi is saying it. Do you still not accept that Lance had an exclusivity agreement with Ferrari and USP?
 
Cobblestones said:
I haven't read the thread, so maybe it has been answered already in the previous 11 pages, but the most straightforward plug for a more expensive and more efficient doping regime is individualization. It's not more EPO or better (different?) EPO both of which would imply greater health risks.

Simply, humans react differently to drugs. You can either take the recommended standard dose and hope it works for you, or you could draw samples every so often, let them be analyzed and tweak your individual regime. Individualization is expensive. You have to pay for the lab tests (those Sysmex machines ain't cheap), the physician has to look over those test results, your training efforts and adjust dose etc. It's probably making a difference. How much of a difference, I don't know.
Ah finaly.

This is the sort of answer i have been looking for.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS