Betsy Andreu
Comments
-
No, but so what? The PR machine was developed during his Tour 'winning' era, but all this nonsense about him pulling out of his early Tours as he was a 'developing' rider was a product of that machineDave_1 wrote:he didn't have a PR machine then
I did not refer to Lemond, I spoke of Merckx's Tour record. True, there are some similarities between Armstrong and Fignon. Armstrong was coming up to 22 when he first rode the Tour, whilst Fignon was almost 23. Both of them rode the Tour in their second year as a professional. The similarities end there. Most notably, while Armstrong got his backside kicked and abandoned the race year after year, Fignon actually won it the first two times he rode it!Dave_1 wrote:Fignon rode the 1983 Tour of Spain for Hinault and Greg Lemond DNFd it...so facts of Greg and Fignon's first grand tour suggest they were much like LanceA in 93.
Merckx was not yet 21 when he first won the Milan-Sanremo, not yet 22 when he first won the Flèche Wallonne and Gent-Wevelgem, and not yet 23 when he first won the Giro d’ Italia.
True enough, Merckx was ‘held back’ from riding the Tour until he was just turned 24, but that was in a different era when it was the norm to race 200 days per year and ‘burning out’ a young rider was a real possibility. The situation was very different by the time Armstrong was racing. For one Armstrong was not expected to ride (and try to win) the classics, the Giro and the Tour of Switzerland before riding the Tour!0 -
In reality one's natural physical capacities are pretty much as good as they are going to get after a couple of years of pro-level racing. Boardman and Keen looked into this in detail and concluded that after a couple of years as a pro the best one could hope for was a gain of around 5w a year...Dave_1 wrote:LA rode in top 10 of Tour De Suisse GC in 1994 too. IMO he could not handle longer events at that age. As have explained before, and have never had a meanigful considered response to, if you use your biggest guns at 21...then how can you become a TDF winner 7 times after that...
Also, how does you 'explanation' fit in with the fact that Armstrong was still getting his backside kicked all over France when he was riding the Tour for the third time and was nearly 24?
Either you are totally ignorant of the way the physiological effects of doping (and training come to that) vary from rider to rider, or you are deliberately trying to be provocative. :evil:Dave_1 wrote:I... have heard crap on here that some riders respond better to doping than others when infact our DNA means we are 99.9% identical in our reactions ....0 -
don key wrote:Moray Gub wrote:forearms Van Petegem wrote:deejay wrote:Dave_1 wrote:.
Then he acted like a tyrant that Mugabe would be proud ot however, reprehensible information, but one can understand pathological alpha males protecting their self-interests.
Dont you think comparing him to Mugabe is just a little bit silly ?
MG
For someone who always questions like a detective on acid and loves to be steaming in self righteously you forgot to notice that he in fact compared him to a "tyrant Mugabe would be proud of", not Mug a Bee himself.
Says a lot about you i suppose that you focus on that rather than him being described as tyrant, either way it was a silly comment and indicative of the kind crap that gets spouted about Lance in here.
MGGasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
Moray Gub wrote:don key wrote:Moray Gub wrote:forearms Van Petegem wrote:deejay wrote:Dave_1 wrote:.
Then he acted like a tyrant that Mugabe would be proud ot however, reprehensible information, but one can understand pathological alpha males protecting their self-interests.
Dont you think comparing him to Mugabe is just a little bit silly ?
MG
For someone who always questions like a detective on acid and loves to be steaming in self righteously you forgot to notice that he in fact compared him to a "tyrant Mugabe would be proud of", not Mug a Bee himself.
Says a lot about you i suppose that you focus on that rather than him being described as tyrant, either way it was a silly comment and indicative of the kind crap that gets spouted about Lance in here.
MG
Gosh yes what an example Lance is to us all...loved the humane and understanding way he treated Filippo Simeoni in 2004. :roll: You have changed my mind completely Lance is a lovely man and I'm sure the whole doping issue is just a big misunderstanding
0 -
aurelio wrote:
No, but so what? The PR machine was developed during his Tour 'winning' era, but all this nonsense about him pulling out of his early Tours as he was a 'developing' rider was a product of that machineDave_1 wrote:he didn't have a PR machine then
I did not refer to Lemond, I spoke of Merckx's Tour record. True, there are some similarities between Armstrong and Fignon. Armstrong was coming up to 22 when he first rode the Tour, whilst Fignon was almost 23. Both of them rode the Tour in their second year as a professional. The similarities end there. Most notably, while Armstrong got his backside kicked and abandoned the race year after year, Fignon actually won it the first two times he rode it!Dave_1 wrote:Fignon rode the 1983 Tour of Spain for Hinault and Greg Lemond DNFd it...so facts of Greg and Fignon's first grand tour suggest they were much like LanceA in 93.
Merckx was not yet 21 when he first won the Milan-Sanremo, not yet 22 when he first won the Flèche Wallonne and Gent-Wevelgem, and not yet 23 when he first won the Giro d’ Italia.
True enough, Merckx was ‘held back’ from riding the Tour until he was just turned 24, but that was in a different era when it was the norm to race 200 days per year and ‘burning out’ a young rider was a real possibility. The situation was very different by the time Armstrong was racing. For one Armstrong was not expected to ride (and try to win) the classics, the Giro and the Tour of Switzerland before riding the Tour!
your reasoning that grand tour winning potential is shown early on in the rider's career...fignon and Lemond had mediocre or poor showings at the Vuelta 83...and how do you have knowledge of what Armstrong's condition was mid TDF 1993-94...you were not there...I wasn't , so let's move onto more solid ground. Armstrong was raced as a potential classics winner from 93 onward...he was 2nd at GP zurich when he was 20 behind Ekimov...he was team leader going into 1993, 94, 95...seem to rememeber he was 2nd in Paris Nice and the only rider remotely capable of challenging Jalabert in that year's Paris Nice...again you forget that...the guy could climb very well and TT well...was developing...not interested in your better responder to drugs theory...you have no proof of that0 -
But quite clearly not all people respond to drugs in the same way - if you have a headache the 2 paracetamols you take might have no effect on me whatsoever. Cancer treatment is not one size fits all so, if patients legitimately using EPO have different responses to it, why shouldn't those using it for its performance enhancing qualities.
If all drugs affected all people identically then we'd all be GPs - and to argue that they do seems absolutely illogical.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... t-you.html Interesting particularly for the emphasis on genetics
http://www.bakeridi.edu.au/research/gen ... s_biology/
http://theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/ ... ll/4/5/4260 -
NaB wrote:Moray Gub wrote:don key wrote:Moray Gub wrote:forearms Van Petegem wrote:
Nobody is saying he is paragon of virtue least of all me but some of the comments about him are laughable really. He has been called a tyrant has a pr machine comparable to to Joe Goebbels, has editorial sway over a French newspaper, has a say over staff employment in ASO to name a few. The anti Lance brigade if nothing else do provide amusement i suppose.
MGGasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
micron wrote:But quite clearly not all people respond to drugs in the same way - if you have a headache the 2 paracetamols you take might have no effect on me whatsoever. Cancer treatment is not one size fits all so, if patients legitimately using EPO have different responses to it, why shouldn't those using it for its performance enhancing qualities.
If all drugs affected all people identically then we'd all be GPs - and to argue that they do seems absolutely illogical.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... t-you.html Interesting particularly for the emphasis on genetics
http://www.bakeridi.edu.au/research/gen ... s_biology/
http://theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/ ... ll/4/5/426
but quite clearly they do...everyone at the top knows how to calibrate , get optimium modified blood...use the products to that end...so not convinced by your posting..every knows exactly what parameters to target...0 -
Those that can afford such sophisticated programmes are how many riders? And not everyone had access to Ferrari - Armstrong had him under an exclusivity contract when he was riding.0
-
Ok, so do we take it that you now accept, as I argued, that an identical doping program will affect different riders to different degrees, just as the same medicinal drugs have different effects on different people?Dave_1 wrote:...everyone at the top knows how to calibrate , get optimium modified blood...use the products to that end...so not convinced by your posting..every knows exactly what parameters to target...
If not I can provide plenty of evidence to support what I say. For example that tightly controlled study done by the Copenhagen Muscle Research Centre (the one that showed that it is quite possible to use Epo and still show up as being 'negative' in an Epo test) found a 32% variation in the degree to which the subjects aerobic power was increased whilst on an identical Epo program.
As to your change in emphasis to 'target parameters', you appear to be overlooking the fact that a rider with a natural haemocrit level of 39% has far more to gain from doping to the 'target parameter' of 50% than a rider whose natural haemocrit is 49%. Also, you appear to believe that riders actually adhere to the UCI's 50% limit. In reality some riders who are driven to win no matter what the cost are willing to push the doping envelope further than other riders, even at a risk to their own health. 'Mr 60%' Riis is one example.
I have read that some riders, Armstrong included, were specialists in receiving their transfusions of 'packed cells' whilst sitting behind the darkened windows of their team buses right before the start of an important stage, well after the UCI 'vampires' had done their early morning calls. The UCI know this but are never going to test riders on the line during the Tour. Patrice Clerc was a supporter of this idea, and we know what happed to him once McQuaid determined to get rid of him...0 -
Moray Gub wrote:don key wrote:Moray Gub wrote:forearms Van Petegem wrote:deejay wrote:Dave_1 wrote:.
Then he acted like a tyrant that Mugabe would be proud ot however, reprehensible information, but one can understand pathological alpha males protecting their self-interests.
Dont you think comparing him to Mugabe is just a little bit silly ?
MG
For someone who always questions like a detective on acid and loves to be steaming in self righteously you forgot to notice that he in fact compared him to a "tyrant Mugabe would be proud of", not Mug a Bee himself.
Says a lot about you i suppose that you focus on that rather than him being described as tyrant, either way it was a silly comment and indicative of the kind crap that gets spouted about Lance in here.
MG
Supposing to say a lot about me is irrelevant, you said he said and he didn't, but you are not able for that, that is obvious. If you accuse some one of saying something and they didn't and then some one else points out that you are wrong and you then change the subject to focus on the pointer outer of said misrepresentation, then it really does say an awful lot about you. This I suspected in the way that you steamed into a load of posters and I was right, great stuff when you give yourself away that easily, bit like Armstrong in his Lemon/Kimmage episodes.
Armstrong is a tyrant, that much is obvious. One day he will get caught on film and that will be fun.0 -
don key wrote:Moray Gub wrote:don key wrote:Moray Gub wrote:forearms Van Petegem wrote:deejay wrote:Dave_1 wrote:.
Supposing to say a lot about me is irrelevant, you said he said and he didn't, but you are not able for that, that is obvious. If you accuse some one of saying something and they didn't and then some one else points out that you are wrong and you then change the subject to focus on the pointer outer of said misrepresentation, then it really does say an awful lot about you. This I suspected in the way that you steamed into a load of posters and I was right, great stuff when you give yourself away that easily, bit like Armstrong in his Lemon/Kimmage episodes.
Armstrong is a tyrant, that much is obvious. One day he will get caught on film and that will be fun.
I am not able for that ? mmmm that mkes a lot sense eh ! Obviously i am going to focus on the pointer outer as the pointer outer had made himself the focus. I really does saya lot about you that you think he is a tyrant whether it be like Mugabe or otherwise as i said in earlier post you anti lance lot are amusing and good fun so keep em coming.
MGGasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
Moray Gub wrote:don key wrote:Moray Gub wrote:don key wrote:Moray Gub wrote:forearms Van Petegem wrote:deejay wrote:Dave_1 wrote:.
Supposing to say a lot about me is irrelevant, you said he said and he didn't, but you are not able for that, that is obvious. If you accuse some one of saying something and they didn't and then some one else points out that you are wrong and you then change the subject to focus on the pointer outer of said misrepresentation, then it really does say an awful lot about you. This I suspected in the way that you steamed into a load of posters and I was right, great stuff when you give yourself away that easily, bit like Armstrong in his Lemon/Kimmage episodes.
Armstrong is a tyrant, that much is obvious. One day he will get caught on film and that will be fun.
I am not able for that ? mmmm that mkes a lot sense eh ! Obviously i am going to focus on the pointer outer as the pointer outer had made himself the focus. I really does saya lot about you that you think he is a tyrant whether it be like Mugabe or otherwise as i said in earlier post you anti lance lot are amusing and good fun so keep em coming.
MG
You make untrue statements about what others supposedly say, I correct them and you get annoyed and try to take me down a peg. You are very easy to spot and you don't like it, you are therefore unable for it. I already knew that from your previous romances with other posters. it's funny at first but gets boring after a few power posts.0 -
[quote="don key"
You make untrue statements about what others supposedly say, I correct them and you get annoyed and try to take me down a peg. You are very easy to spot and you don't like it, you are therefore unable for it. I already knew that from your previous romances with other posters. it's funny at first but gets boring after a few power posts.[/quote]
Power posts ? from you ......hahahaha this means a lot you doesnt it I think you get some kind of hard-on from it whatever floats your boat i suppose.
MGGasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
Dave_1 wrote:[
your reasoning that grand tour winning potential is shown early on in the rider's career...fignon and Lemond had mediocre or poor showings at the Vuelta 83...and how do you have knowledge of what Armstrong's condition was mid TDF 1993-94...you were not there...I wasn't , so let's move onto more solid ground.
I was fortunate to be there mid 94 to see the Begerac TT and the heat was intense to say the least!.
I think LA's problem in his earlier years was that he rode himself into oblivion (at Bergerac he had Indurain off behind,& tried too hard to follow him,when he was caught) whenever he rode.
Hence he was seen as a good one day rider pre cancer.
The making of LA was when Bruyneel came on board & educated him to meter out his efforts.
Armstrong in his early years would have tried to win any & every TDF stage win,& if he somehow had managed to win the overall,It would not have been through planning.
I've recently read Bruyneels book,& he said he had to continually force LA to keep the high cadence training going in the mountains,to the point where LA removed his earpiece to try to ignore Bruyneel,& bruyneel kept blowing the car horn at him!
I don't think for one minute that LA is a 'nice' person,but a VERY driven person.
I didn't rate his treatment of Simeoni,& thought he just embarassed himself,but you cannot,for one minute deny that he was the best TDF rider of his time,from 99 onwardsso many cols,so little time!0 -
Moray Gub wrote:[quote="don key"
You make untrue statements about what others supposedly say, I correct them and you get annoyed and try to take me down a peg. You are very easy to spot and you don't like it, you are therefore unable for it. I already knew that from your previous romances with other posters. it's funny at first but gets boring after a few power posts.
Power posts ? from you ......hahahaha this means a lot you doesnt it I think you get some kind of hard-on from it whatever floats your boat i suppose.
MG[/quote]
You are the space I was thinking of wasting. You are a lot more flimsy than I imagined, the point for me, as is becoming clear is that I wont be relating to your particular form of dishonesty.0 -
don key wrote:Moray Gub wrote:[quote="don key"
You are the space I was thinking of wasting. You are a lot more flimsy than I imagined, the point for me, as is becoming clear is that I wont be relating to your particular form of dishonesty.
Drama queen alert ! Drama queen alert !Drama queen alert !Drama queen alert !Drama queen alert !Drama queen alert !Drama queen alert !Drama queen alert !Drama queen alert !Drama queen alert !Drama queen alert !Drama queen alert !Drama queen alert !Drama queen alert !Drama queen alert !Drama queen alert !
MGGasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
Originally posted by Dave 1..not interested in your better responder to drugs theory...you have no proof of that[/quote][/b][/b]
There is a considerable amount of proof I'm afraid. I worked for a pharmaceutical company selling EPO to haematologists for over 4 years and every one of those would tell you that patients respond differently to EPO depending upon their bone marrow function and functional iron status. Some patients would see considerable rises in their haemoglobin using a particular dose of the drug whereas up to 50% would see minimal or no change at all. Whilst some of this is explained by the extent of their disease it is also seen in dose finding studies in healthy volunteers.0 -
Dave_1, you might want to revisit this. There is now thought to be a gene that is involved in red blood cell production resulting from altitude / hypoxia (the lack of oxygen/reduced partial pressure etc). Studies have suggested that some people respond quickly to altitude (training), whilst others don't respond to being at altitude, their red blood cell doesn't increase. It is thought that this difference is genetic. No comment on which riders have or haven't got this gene but keep your mind open...Dave_1 wrote:have heard crap on here that some riders respond better to doping than others when infact our DNA means we are 99.9% identical in our reactions ....0 -
If he was riding himself 'into oblivion' simply in order to finish mountain stages 20-30 minutes behind the winner, and to finish even flat TT's 6 minutes behind the fastest rider, this just goes to show what a mediocre natural talent he really had, at least as a Tour rider...nick hanson wrote:[I think LA's problem in his earlier years was that he rode himself into oblivion...0 -
Quite so, the main talent 'certain' riders have is the degree to which they respond to doping...Kléber wrote:
Dave_1, you might want to revisit this. There is now thought to be a gene that is involved in red blood cell production resulting from altitude / hypoxia (the lack of oxygen/reduced partial pressure etc). Studies have suggested that some people respond quickly to altitude (training), whilst others don't respond to being at altitude, their red blood cell doesn't increase. It is thought that this difference is genetic. No comment on which riders have or haven't got this gene but keep your mind open...Dave_1 wrote:have heard crap on here that some riders respond better to doping than others when infact our DNA means we are 99.9% identical in our reactions ....0 -
[/b][/b]sward29 wrote:Originally posted by Dave 1..not interested in your better responder to drugs theory...you have no proof of that
There is a considerable amount of proof I'm afraid. I worked for a pharmaceutical company selling EPO to haematologists for over 4 years and every one of those would tell you that patients respond differently to EPO depending upon their bone marrow function and functional iron status. Some patients would see considerable rises in their haemoglobin using a particular dose of the drug whereas up to 50% would see minimal or no change at all. Whilst some of this is explained by the extent of their disease it is also seen in dose finding studies in healthy volunteers.[/quote]
No, the rider makes adjustments fine tunes the dosages to increase oxygen delivery...every human body does the same if healthy, some may take more injections than others or a slightly different variant, but they gun at some specific parameters..e.g. 50% crit...0 -
aurelio wrote:
If he was riding himself 'into oblivion' simply in order to finish mountain stages 20-30 minutes behind the winner, and to finish even flat TT's 6 minutes behind the fastest rider, this just goes to show what a mediocre natural talent he really had, at least as a Tour rider...nick hanson wrote:[I think LA's problem in his earlier years was that he rode himself into oblivion...
he rode full seasons from 1993...stages races in spring, classics, suisse..then TDF...the guy's focus was the classics till 96...that explains part of his lack of 3 week GC ability...you'd let others off with that...
0 -
aurelio wrote:
If he was riding himself 'into oblivion' simply in order to finish mountain stages 20-30 minutes behind the winner, and to finish even flat TT's 6 minutes behind the fastest rider, this just goes to show what a mediocre natural talent he really had, at least as a Tour rider...nick hanson wrote:[I think LA's problem in his earlier years was that he rode himself into oblivion...
he could win in 1 week stage races that were hillly or perform top 3...e.g 95 paris Nice, wins Du pont Tour, top even in top 10 in GC of Tour de Suisse....
u still trying to suggest Greg and Fignon's first grand tour was any better than Lance's? That's one of your main points-that LA did not show 3 week Gc talent early in his career...neither did Fignon and Lemond if we are talking podium or top 10 GC finishes...0 -
So, I take it that you aren't going to answer my point about doping to the UCI's 50% limit benefiting a rider with a natural haemocrit of 39% more than it does a rider whose natural haemocrit level is 49%? And what makes you think that some riders do not push their haemocrits even higher?Dave_1 wrote:the rider makes adjustments fine tunes the dosages to increase oxygen delivery...every human body does the same if healthy, some may take more injections than others or a slightly different variant, but they gun at some specific parameters..e.g. 50% crit...0 -
Yes, as that is the reality of the situation. Regardless of what they did or did not do in some 3rd rate event like the Dupont Tour, or a 'preparation' event such as the Tour of Switzerland, when it comes to the ultimate test that is the Tour de France, Pharmstrong got his backside well and truly kicked for three years on the run whilst Fignon won his first 2 Tours. And you are still trying to pretend that I said that Lemond was a good example of someone who performed well in his early Tours, when I actually gave Merckx as a second example...Dave_1 wrote:u still trying to suggest Greg and Fignon's first grand tour was any better than Lance's? That's one of your main points-that LA did not show 3 week Gc talent early in his career...neither did Fignon and Lemond if we are talking podium or top 10 GC finishes...0 -
aurelio wrote:
Yes, as that is the reality of the situation. Regardless of what they did or did not do in some 3rd rate event like the Dupont Tour, or a 'preparation' event such as the Tour of Switzerland, when it comes to the ultimate test that is the Tour de France, Pharmstrong got his backside well and truly kicked for three years on the run whilst Fignon won his first 2 Tours. And you are still trying to pretend that I said that Lemond was a good example of someone who performed well in his early Tours, when I actually gave Merckx as a second example...Dave_1 wrote:u still trying to suggest Greg and Fignon's first grand tour was any better than Lance's? That's one of your main points-that LA did not show 3 week Gc talent early in his career...neither did Fignon and Lemond if we are talking podium or top 10 GC finishes...
1.you have Fignon as your first example and by inference Lemond...LF was immediately a success at tdf grand tour as was Lemond...
2.& not third rate events...have a look at who he beat...the mountains in suisse tour,paris nice, ...we really are wasting our time here...you overlook the age he was and if anything his pulling out could be construed as being a lack of doping and maturity..... he was 21, e.g. Ullrich wnning TDf at 21 0 -
I feel such an 'inference' exists only in your own head....Dave_1 wrote:you have Fignon as your first example and by inference Lemond...
The bottom line is that Armstrong got his backside kicked all over France for 3 years on the run, showing no sign of ever doing anything different. Meanwhile Fignon, Merckx and so on won their first 2 Tours.Dave_1 wrote:not third rate events...have a look at who he beat...the mountains in suisse tour,paris nice
You can try to read what you like into what riders do in other event's but there are so many variables that you will prove nothing. For example, races such as Paris-Nice, The Tour of Switzerland and others are treated as 'training' events by many who ride them. Conversely, the sort of performances some riders come out with in such events are no real indication that those riders have the ability to be multiple Tour de France winners. For example, consider Chris Boardman's second place in the 1995 Dauphine Libere, where only Indurain beat him.
For as long as you continue to refuse to answer the central points I (and others) make, such as the way doping benefits different riders to different degrees, and instead prefer to pretend that I said what I didn't actually say (or 'infer' come to that :roll: ), you are probably right.Dave_1 wrote:we really are wasting our time here
Still, why on earth should I expect consistencey, or even rationality, from someone who constantly defends Pharmstrong, even whilst accepting that he doped, and spits bile in the direction of other riders, such as Zabel, for doing the same.0 -
aurelio wrote:
I feel such an 'inference' exists only in your own head....Dave_1 wrote:you have Fignon as your first example and by inference Lemond...
The bottom line is that Armstrong got his backside kicked all over France for 3 years on the run, showing no sign of ever doing anything different. Meanwhile Fignon, Merckx and so on won their first 2 Tours.Dave_1 wrote:not third rate events...have a look at who he beat...the mountains in suisse tour,paris nice
You can try to read what you like into what riders do in other event's but there are so many variables that you will prove nothing. For example, races such as Paris-Nice, The Tour of Switzerland and others are treated as 'training' events by many who ride them. Conversely, the sort of performances some riders come out with in such events are no real indication that those riders have the ability to be multiple Tour de France winners. For example, consider Chris Boardman's second place in the 1995 Dauphine Libere, where only Indurain beat him.
For as long as you continue to refuse to answer the central points I (and others) make, such as the way doping benefits different riders to different degrees, and instead prefer to pretend that I said what I didn't actually say (or 'infer' come to that :roll: ), you are probably right.Dave_1 wrote:we really are wasting our time here
Still, why on earth should I expect consistencey, or even rationality, from someone who constantly defends Pharmstrong, even whilst accepting that he doped, and spits bile in the direction of other riders, such as Zabel, for doing the same.
Zabel got caught, LA didn't. The events I name are good indicators for many.. Lemond and Fignon had identical early careers so why you point it out again I don't know..., the science of doping means riders take the quanitity they need to get the best blood parameters...they may need different quanitites/doses, so again, i reject your premise- unsound science. My reasoning that LA doped is cause nobody could ride at that level without out...but I have no proof and nor do you
I see you now comment that I am irrational, question my state of mind...nice...thanks...that's a real sign you are winning the debate when you have to imply something is wrong with my mental health cause I don't accept your views. And again you don't ackowldge LA rode full seasons in 93,94, 95 , you don't acceot age limits performance, you don't accept that some events were excellent predictors of future climbing and TT performance...0 -
Read the thread. You are the one who keeps on bringing Lemond into the equation!Dave_1 wrote:Lemond and Fignon had identical early careers so why you point it out again I don't know.
Ah! So now it is 'best blood parameters' that you are talking about, rather than the UCI's 50% limit that you talked about earlier. What do you mean by 'best' I wonder? The highest possible without actually dropping down dead of a heart attack perhaps? Whatever, a rider with a lower natural haemocrit has more to gain from boosting it than someone with a naturally high haemocrit.Dave_1 wrote:the science of doping means riders take the quanitity they need to get the best blood parameters...they may need different quanitites/doses, so again, i reject your premise- unsound science.
'Acknowledge'? This is the first time you have brought this up! Still, Pharmstrong would not be alone in riding a 'full season' before riding the Tour would he? In fact isn’t Armstrong well known for NOT racing a full season, more or less focusing on the Tour to the exclusion of everything else?Dave_1 wrote:you don't ackowldge LA rode full seasons in 93,94, 95 ,
I don't recall arguing this. Whatever, it is perfectly correct to say that riders like Fignon won the Tour when they were younger than Armstrong was when he was still getting his backside kicked all over France...Dave_1 wrote:you don't acceot age limits performance
Indicators maybe, but not predictors, especially given the fact that many events outside the Tour, the Giro included, are treated as 'training' events by many who take part. By the way, I never said that the Tour of Switzerland or Paris-Nice were 'third rate events'. Rather, I said that the Tour Dupont was a third rate event.Dave_1 wrote:you don't accept that some events were excellent predictors of future climbing and TT performance...
As to rationality, I am happy to leave it to other to judge who is talking the most sense here!0
