Why I will always be a "fanboy" and proud of it

[andy1234]

Though it would be incorrrect to only limit the refutal of your statement only on results from the TDF (there are other races), let's start there....

Let's see -- in 1993 there were 136 riders who finished ahead of Lance (abandoned) and in 1994 that number was 117 (Lance abandoned again). I am positive (no pun intended!) that among that number there were a number of non-dopers -- not least of which was Andy Hampsten ('93).

in 1995, there were 35 cyclists who finished better than him in the TDF, at least three of whom I am 99.9% sure never doped in their career since I raced with (against?) them and have stayed in touch since... and there may be others as well.

In 1996, everyone finished ahead of Armstrong, though, admittedly, there are were extenuating circumstances...

I also know of several promising riders whose test scores were on par with those of Armstrong (when he was younger) but who dropped out of racing explicitely because they did not want to dope to remain "competitive".

So, no, not all riders that Armstrong faced were doped and several would have had a chance to compete on par with him had the field not been "gamed".

I suspect that if you have "no problem" with doping in the pro peleton, it is because you have never raced in the pro peleton. I suggest your point of view might be different had you been faced with the choice to race undoped, race doped or change jobs.

Interesting points, but concentrationg on a single goal (tour GC) certainly would have improved on those, pre cancer, tour stats. A case in point for this is the likes of Ulrich and LeMond who frequently struggled to finish mid field in non targeted races leading up to the tour, but ended up on the tour podium just a few months later.
In that sense, those stats could be skewed.

Lance Armstrong is frequently cited for drug abuse previous to his cancer and subsequesnt comeback. Knowing his personality, I doubt that he was limiting himself in his preparation.
So my question is this...
If we assume that he was using EPO, growth hormone, steroids etc etc before his cancer, what gave him the considerable improvement in performance post cancer? Even more EPO, growth hormone and Steroids?

Its a genuine question, so no one jump down my throat with evangelical anti Lanceisms.

 

[Anonymous]

Let me start this post by saying that I am really looking forward to see what amusing and deluded lengths the anti Armstrong brigade will go to paint me as either:

1. A "troll" - like it actually hurts someones feelings who doesn't depend on their reputation in an internet forum for their self esteem.

2. In the employ of Lxxxstrong/ Nxke/ the Taleban

3. Lance Armstrong himself

Ok....so here goes:

I have intermittently read posts in this forum for about a year or so, and frankly have never been even slightly inclined to post or get into any kind of debate with the self styled moral arbiters or doping experts who seem to have an extraordinary amount of free time on their hands. But I have to admit that some of the complete nonsense spouted has gotten the better of me.

So the first question. Do I think Lance doped?

Answer: Yes.

Do I care?

Answer: No

Who was cheated here? Ullrich? Pantani? Basso? Hamilton? Landis? Menchov? Vino? Kloeden? Beloki?

The playing field was level. Anyone who believes otherwise....I have some more bad news for you....Father Christmas doesn't exist either....honestly you can google it if you don't believe me.

Now once you have had a little lie down and recovered from the shock I will continue...

But the haters say "without dope he was just average"....well the evidence doesn't in anyway support your wish/ theory. The rules of the game were the same for everybody. "But it was just his doping programme that was better" they whine...."everyone knows it was sponsored by selling bikes on ebay or children into forced labour or dirty bombs to Al Qaeda"...or whatever the latest conspiracy it is that their fevered little minds can come up with. Well frankly, if his programme was better....good for him. I am sorry if this seems cynical....but if I saw Andy Schleck trying to take on Contador over the tourmalet on a brompton with a shopping basket on the front and toe straps, I wouldn't be whining about Contadors advantage....I'd be suggesting that Schleck find himself a new sponsor.

I admire Armstrong as a professional athlete. I admire his 7 tour wins. I admire the new audience he brought to cycling. I loved watching him....just as I loved watching Pantani....and Ullrich...and Indurain... I admire his comeback from serious illness. And I admire hugely the enormous good he has done in the continuing fight on Cancer and Cancer awareness. And you may hate that he made money while doing so....and that is your perogative, but i don't...You may hate the ubiquitous yellow wrist bands but they are a very simple reflection and barometer of the magnitude of his legacy. A lot of People love him. And always will.


And yes, some people hate him because or despite of everything I have said. And i don't wish to change your minds if you do. Just as I don't wish to change peoples minds if they believe Lady Di was killed by MI6....I will just continue thinking they are full of s..t.

And finally a few quick thoughts on a few related points;

1. Paul Kimmage....why oh why anyone uses him as the barometer of clean cycling I will never know.....himself a confessed doper who has never had the balls to name anyone of substance who doped with him...and yet has consistently criticised Millar, Kohl etc for also not naming names

2. Greg Lemond...ok I don't want to start any crazy conspiracy theories without any substance....but I think his "he said ....she said" rhetoric is pretty irresponsible to say the least....and I would love someone to ask him who his Doctor was in the 80's and if any of the medical help he received then has since become a banned practice...cos frankly Fignon...Bernard " I never tested positive" Hinault and Delgado don't put him in exactly angelic company.

3. Landis...all the haters love him now....even Adam Myerson would shake his hand....why?....what is there to admire? I feel genuinely sorry for the guy....I am afraid the one thing history may remember from this is his name and reputation being totally shot. And honestly that would be sad. I really hope someone looks out for him. It seems the most futile gesture. I don't think anyone will serve time or be "brought down" by anything he has said....he hasn't said anything new....other than name some names that it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure might have been involved....the only concrete thing he has provided is an admission of perjury.

4. Ferrari....trying to undermine his credentials as a coach, despite whether you agree with any of his supposed ethics is nonsense. Baby and bathwater springs to mind. Kilos/watts....VAM....high revolution pedalling techniques....all commonly accepted in todays cycling parlance and all developed in part by his work. And actually his hill climbing interval training is brilliant....genuinely brilliant....don't believe me....just join his site and get them.

Ok....finally...let me say this.....i love cycling....I really do. It changed my life. I am not trying to be an apologist for any kind of untoward behaviour. I am just being a realist. The thing I hate is cycling fans and some "commentators" seemingly trying to tear the sport apart by having meaningless imflammtory debates on the ethics of the past. Let the past be the past....dark or otherwise....no matter what anybody says, I won't stop admiring Tom Simpson....or Eddy Mercxx....or Jacgues Antequill.

I actually think as a sport it has done more to try and clean itself up than all other sports. But will it ever go completely away? Of course not. Even Lemond has said that the way forward may be to try and "control" doping. In an ideal world everyone would be clean. Great. But unfortunately that isn't the case....so let's have a reasoned debate. If any of us were offered a pill that enabled us to stay up for 18 hours a day with no side effects and that improved our looks /IQ's / brilliance in the sack, would we take it? Would we consider it cheating life? Really?

Let's talk about the future of cycling....whatever that may be. And frankly until someone shows me a photo of Armstrong or Bruyneel sacrificing babies on the postal bus before the ITT at the 2004 tour, I will, without reservation, love my memories of the past.

Peace


Oh....and P.S. without wishing to seem more imflammatory....does anyone else think that anyone who puts a supposedly brilliant quote as their signature might as well be wearing a T shirt that says "Sex instructor...first lesson free"?

Brevity, look it up, get some.

 

[Race Radio]

Interesting points, but concentrationg on a single goal (tour GC) certainly would have improved on those, pre cancer, tour stats. A case in point for this is the likes of Ulrich and LeMond who frequently struggled to finish mid field in non targeted races leading up to the tour, but ended up on the tour podium just a few months later.
In that sense, those stats could be skewed.

Lance Armstrong is frequently cited for drug abuse previous to his cancer and subsequesnt comeback. Knowing his personality, I doubt that he was limiting himself in his preparation.
So my question is this...
If we assume that he was using EPO, growth hormone, steroids etc etc before his cancer, what gave him the considerable improvement in performance post cancer? Even more EPO, growth hormone and Steroids?

Its a genuine question, so no one jump down my throat with evangelical anti Lanceisms.

If you listen to his former Motorola Teamate Stephen Swart he will tell you that Armstrong started using EPO in 1995. This coincided with a sudden jump in form over the next 12 months where he not only finished the Tour but also won Fleche and San Sebastian. You also can't ignore that Armstrong started his relationship with Ferrari in late 1995.

 

[hrotha]

If you listen to his former Motorola Teamate Stephen Swart he will tell you that Armstrong started using EPO in 1995. This coincided with a sudden jump in form over the next 12 months where he not only finished the Tour but also won Fleche and San Sebastian. You also can't ignore that Armstrong started his relationship with Ferrari in late 1995.

Insterestingly enough, I always thought of his 1995-96 performances (especially the '96 Tour du Pont but also his 36th place in the '95 TdF GC) as signs that he *could* do well in stage races, even before cancer. The timeline of Armstrong and EPO sure puts that in perspective.

 

[straydog]

.... not all riders that Armstrong faced were doped and several would have had a chance to compete on par with him had the field not been "gamed".

I suspect that if you have "no problem" with doping in the pro peleton, it is because you have never raced in the pro peleton. I suggest your point of view might be different had you been faced with the choice to race undoped, race doped or change jobs.

That is a hell of a big and, might I add somewhat naive, assumption to make....I will quietly chuckle at it rather than refute your suggestion about what choices faced me....

And I don't remember ever thinking or indeed saying, that ALL riders Armstrong faced were doped....but i am still waiting for the "legions" of the clean to come forward

I also know of several promising riders whose test scores were on par with those of Armstrong (when he was younger) but who dropped out of racing explicitely because they did not want to dope to remain "competitive".....and i know a few with some very impressive "numbers" who didn't drop out and who did dope and still weren't competitive...and i know plenty of guys with sh*t "numbers" who don't dope and are competitve....but hey it's all about numbers....until people want to start saying that Lance's weren't that good anyway....but that's the great thing about "evidence"....you can flip it which ever way you want when it's thin

Though it would be incorrrect to only limit the refutal of your statement only on results from the TDF (there are other races), let's start there....you're right...it would be incorrect to only limit it to the TDF....but much easier to ignore his win at the worlds in 93 (age 21)...or his US amateur title at 19...or his 92 olympics result at 20....and second at liege in 94...and san sebastian....and fleche....and the fact that up until 95....he wasn't a GC team leader or actually even want to be....

The truth is there is a wide discrepancy in how much cyclists pay for their doping services....yes and some of them have better bikes too....and more money for training camps....and nicer team cars

Do any of you guys remember 98?....How many sat down?....and how many finished? It was very clear indication of where feelings lay in the peloton....and if you missed that and thought it was clean and nice and then this angry texan came along....well ok...if it makes it easier for you....fine.

And one last thing....LA was a bully....ok if that is your criteria for hate....please don't ever go near even a Cat 4 criterium....let alone a pro peloton....cos honestly....they might hurt your feelings

 

[Anonymous]

That is a hell of a big and, might I add somewhat naive, assumption to make....I will quietly chuckle at it rather than refute your suggestion about what choices faced me....

And I don't remember ever thinking or indeed saying, that ALL riders Armstrong faced were doped....but i am still waiting for the "legions" of the clean to come forward

I also know of several promising riders whose test scores were on par with those of Armstrong (when he was younger) but who dropped out of racing explicitely because they did not want to dope to remain "competitive".....and i know a few with some very impressive "numbers" who didn't drop out and who did dope and still weren't competitive...and i know plenty of guys with sh*t "numbers" who don't dope and are competitve....but hey it's all about numbers....until people want to start saying that Lance's weren't that good anyway....but that's the great thing about "evidence"....you can flip it which ever way you want when it's thin

Though it would be incorrrect to only limit the refutal of your statement only on results from the TDF (there are other races), let's start there....you're right...it would be incorrect to only limit it to the TDF....but much easier to ignore his win at the worlds....and fleche....and the fact that up until 95....he wasn't a GC team leader or actually even want to be....

The truth is there is a wide discrepancy in how much cyclists pay for their doping services....yes and some of them have better bikes too....and more money for training camps....and nicer team cars

Do any of you guys remember 98?....How many sat down?....and how many finished? It was very clear indication of where feelings lay in the peloton....and if you missed that and thought it was clean and nice and then this angry texan came along....well ok...if it makes it easier for you....fine.

And one last thing....LA was a bully....ok if that is your criteria for hate....please don't ever go near even a Cat 4 criterium....let alone a pro peloton....cos honestly....they might hurt your feelings

Okay, so now you are out as a Ferrari trained pro cyclist...the internet is great, isn't it! You can be anybody you want!

Anyway, the fact that you find yourself original and/or poignant is funny. Posts such as yours are as common as syphilis and as original as The Jonas Brothers. Do us all a favor, shorten them down a bit. That way people might actually read them, and you will extend the life of your keyboard.

 

[straydog]

just edited a bit...you know...to help

 

[straydog]

Okay, so now you are out as a Ferrari trained pro cyclist...the internet is great, isn't it! You can be anybody you want!

Anyway, the fact that you find yourself original and/or poignant is funny. Posts such as yours are as common as syphilis and as original as The Jonas Brothers. Do us all a favor, shorten them down a bit. That way people might actually read them, and you will extend the life of your keyboard.

Actually, I was an amateur when I got training plans from Ferrari....you could get one too....he has a website...and it is very competitvely priced

And did I ride Pro races long before that?....I am sorry if that upsets you....but if it helps I never won the TDF....so I must be full of sh*t

 

[Anonymous]

just edited a bit...you know...to help

No, no it didn't. I find myself becoming apathetic around sentence 2 or 3 in your posts. I always start out hoping against hope that you will be THE one. The fanboy who provides something original. The fanboy who is different from the rest. I don't want to agree, I just want to be entertained, as fiction like that which you write should be entertaining. Unfortunately, I lose interest with your delusions of grandeur fairly quickly.

So again, if you are insistent upon continuing to provide banal, unperceptive rhetoric, do a brother a solid and shorten it up a bit, would ya?

 

[andy1234]

Brevity, look it up, get some.

Relevance, look it up, get some.

Everyone, start txt spk plse. It hlps the deb8t. Apprntly

 

[andy1234]

No, no it didn't. I find myself becoming apathetic around sentence 2 or 3 in your posts. I always start out hoping against hope that you will be THE one. The fanboy who provides something original. The fanboy who is different from the rest. I don't want to agree, I just want to be entertained, as fiction like that which you write should be entertaining. Unfortunately, I lose interest with your delusions of grandeur fairly quickly.

So again, if you are insistent upon continuing to provide banal, unperceptive rhetoric, do a brother a solid and shorten it up a bit, would ya?

Ok, I asked a question, where was your input there?

 

[Anonymous]

Actually, I was an amateur when I got training plans from Ferrari....you could get one too....he has a website...and it is very competitvely priced

And did I ride Pro races long before that?....I am sorry if that upsets you....but if it helps I never won the TDF....so I must be full of sh*t

If I were to pay Ferrari for ANYTHING, it would certainly have to include drugs. Your lack of understanding that he is truly a genius when it comes to doping is funny. I take nothing away from the man. Everyone acts like he is just some hack who shoots people up with random stuff hoping that it will help. I would suggest that, from the results of his "coaching," one could infer that he tests his ideas extensively, refines them based on a riders individual physiology, and works to produce specific performance. And he is quite *** at it, obviously. This ignorant idea that dopers are lazy donkeys who are looking for a shortcut is promoted by either people with an interest in hiding their doping, or those incapable of logical thought.

No, Ferrari gets paid the big bucks by riders precisely BECAUSE he is a genius in what he does. Irrespective of what you think of the man, you have to know that he is the best at what he does, and like riders who train with the latest methods AND dope (because if you want to win, that is what you do. Sitting on your a$$ eating bon bons and shooting EPO will make you pack filler.), you also need a doctor willing to refine PED use for maximum effect. That is not easy, nor inexpensive.

 

[Anonymous]

Relevance, look it up, get some.

Everyone, start txt spk plse. It hlps the deb8t. Apprntly

Irony, you don't get it, do you?

 

[Anonymous]

Ok, I asked a question, where was your input there?

Thanks for keeping it short andy, I appreciate that!

 

[straydog]

....banal, unperceptive rhetoric.

did you apply that criteria to your signature?....or were you too busy buying another "I'm mad me" T shirt to let everyone know you have a personality?

Now....if you don't like the length of my posts ...or don't find them entertaining enough...don't read them....and don't contribute to the discussion....oh wait....scratch the last one....you don't.

 

[Anonymous]

did you apply that criteria to your signature?....or were you too busy buying another "I'm mad me" T shirt to let everyone know you have a personality?

Now....if you don't like the length of my posts ...or don't find them entertaining enough...don't read them....and don't contribute to the discussion....oh wait....scratch the last one....you don't.

I don't unless they are short like this one. I already know what your long ones say without having to read them. They are actually that predictable.

As for my sig, it was written by an ACTUAL pro...you know, someone who does what you only pretend to do.

 

[andy1234]

Irony, you don't get it, do you?

Nope, your going to have to explain the irony bit.

 

[Anonymous]

Nope, your going to have to explain the irony bit.

Okay, follow along: You posted the comment "Relevance, look it up, get some." Now, your point there was in relation to a post I made that was not a response to the actual content of the OP. I chose instead to make commentary on him personally.

So, you then set the standard that posting on this thread should only be relevant to the topic at hand, and not in relation to personal comments...only when you did so, you too failed to provide content directly addressing the topic of the thread thereby immediately acting counter to the rule you were making up as you typed. It was instant irony.

Get it?

 

[straydog]

If I were to pay Ferrari for ANYTHING, it would certainly have to include drugs. Your lack of understanding that he is truly a genius when it comes to doping is funny. I take nothing away from the man. Everyone acts like he is just some hack who shoots people up with random stuff hoping that it will help. I would suggest that, from the results of his "coaching," one could infer that he tests his ideas extensively, refines them based on a riders individual physiology, and works to produce specific performance. And he is quite *** at it, obviously. This ignorant idea that dopers are lazy donkeys who are looking for a shortcut is promoted by either people with an interest in hiding their doping, or those incapable of logical thought.

No, Ferrari gets paid the big bucks by riders precisely BECAUSE he is a genius in what he does. Irrespective of what you think of the man, you have to know that he is the best at what he does, and like riders who train with the latest methods AND dope (because if you want to win, that is what you do. Sitting on your a$$ eating bon bons and shooting EPO will make you pack filler.), you also need a doctor willing to refine PED use for maximum effect. That is not easy, nor inexpensive.

I stand corrected you did contribute something....

I never suggested Ferrari didn't prescribe....if you look at my original mention of him (and yes it was in a loooong post)....you have just agreed with me....reducing his credentials to just a "haematolgist" or Doctor Dope is what i found amusing.


you also need a doctor willing to refine PED use for maximum effect....exaclty.....and that means not just any doctor....I wouldn't be asking my GP about it.

Any quack can tell you the effects that EPO, or HGH, or Testosterone etc etc can have on your body. it takes an entirely different knowledge to apply that information to a very specific sporting context

 

[andy1234]

Okay, follow along: You posted the comment "Relevance, look it up, get some." Now, your point there was in relation to a post I made that was not a response to the actual content of the OP. I chose instead to make commentary on him personally.

So, you then set the standard that posting on this thread should only be relevant to the topic at hand, and not in relation to personal comments...only when you did so, you too failed to provide content directly addressing the topic of the thread thereby acting counter to the rule you just made.

Get it?

Oh, I get it, very clever.

So are you going to contribute now?

 

[straydog]

And a quick question...would you only pay for your dope from ferrari...but pay Coach Carmichael for the training plans?

 

[Anonymous]

I stand corrected you did contribute something....

I never suggested Ferrari didn't prescribe....if you look at my original mention of him (and yes it was in a loooong post)....you have just agreed with me....reducing his credentials to just a "haematolgist" or Doctor Dope is what i found amusing.


you also need a doctor willing to refine PED use for maximum effect....exaclty.....and that means not just any doctor....I wouldn't be asking my GP about it.

Any quack can tell you the effects that EPO, or HGH, or Testosterone etc etc can have on your body. it takes an entirely different knowledge to apply that information to a very specific sporting context

If you read my post, he really is Dr. Dope. His refining of PED usage is in DIRECT relation to the training methods he suggests. If you want training methods from someone who does not include doping, I would suggest that you can find someone much cheaper in your immediate area. Why pay Ferrari? His deal isn't training plans for regular cyclists (hint: that is just a way to provide a facade of credulity). He makes the big bucks off of pros who want the best program money can buy.

 

[Anonymous]

And a quick question...would you only pay for your dope from ferrari...but pay Coach Carmichael for the training plans?

I wouldn't pay Chris Carmichael to clean the chamois cream out of my shorts. No, I have a good friend who is an accomplished coach/cyclist/triathlete/ultra endurance runner who I consult when I want to get serious about something. Its free, and there is no scummy residue unlike Mr Carmichael.

 

[Anonymous]

Oh, I get it, very clever.

So are you going to contribute now?

Are you?..

 

[andy1234]

Are you?..

Is this that game where you are not allowed to answer with a yes or no?

I asked a question earlier if your interested....