Hamilton Positive
Comments
-
markwalker wrote:
FACT yet again the ugly (fact) short (fact) drug cheat (fact)is looking for sympathy.
Mark - unfortunately you are shooting yourself in the foot here.
What does ugly and short have to do with anything? All they do is take away from your argument and help us to come to terms with some of your own shortcomings as well.0 -
SpaceJunk wrote:markwalker wrote:
FACT yet again the ugly (fact) short (fact) drug cheat (fact)is looking for sympathy.
Mark - unfortunately you are shooting yourself in the foot here.
What does ugly and short have to do with anything? All they do is take away from your argument and help us to come to terms with some of your own shortcomings as well.
ineed...you see he finally gave up after my last post...conceding the point...he either loves seeing people taken down cause he hasn't had much success or he's extremely naive about the criminals many of the heros and their domestiques are since 1992...hundreds of Tylers....foolish postings by Mark...blame one guy when Indurain and rominger have more to answer for IMO0 -
SpaceJunk wrote:markwalker wrote:
FACT yet again the ugly (fact) short (fact) drug cheat (fact)is looking for sympathy.
Mark - unfortunately you are shooting yourself in the foot here.
What does ugly and short have to do with anything? All they do is take away from your argument and help us to come to terms with some of your own shortcomings as well.
the point im making is that his physical presence is in line with the poor underdog character that we're all to believe in. Im afraid i dont understand your final sentence, it seems to be spelt properly but when you put those words in that order it makes no sense. Perhaps some punctuation would help? Either way i cant be bothered to work it out.0 -
Dave_1 wrote:SpaceJunk wrote:markwalker wrote:
FACT yet again the ugly (fact) short (fact) drug cheat (fact)is looking for sympathy.
Mark - unfortunately you are shooting yourself in the foot here.
What does ugly and short have to do with anything? All they do is take away from your argument and help us to come to terms with some of your own shortcomings as well.
ineed...you see he finally gave up after my last post...conceding the point...he either loves seeing people taken down cause he hasn't had much success or he's extremely naive about the criminals many of the heros and their domestiques are since 1992...hundreds of Tylers....foolish postings by Mark...blame one guy when Indurain and rominger have more to answer for IMO
Dave, have you got learning or reading difficulties? I haven’t responded to you recently because I have agreed with your point that many others were involved.
We are in agreement. I went further than that though and suggested that it wasn’t only the fact that he cheated that damages the sport (and I agree it does) but that the way he behaved afterwards prolonged and deepened the damage.
As for your banal psychoanalysis. Clearly wrong but it might be interesting to understand why you are so keen to jump on this again. You love me don’t you? Come on Dave don’t be shy0 -
Dave_1 wrote:SpaceJunk wrote:markwalker wrote:
ineed...you see he finally gave up after my last post...conceding the point...he either loves seeing people taken down cause he hasn't had much success or he's extremely naive about the criminals many of the heros and their domestiques are since 1992...hundreds of Tylers....foolish postings by Mark...blame one guy when Indurain and rominger have more to answer for IMO[/quotet
What are people's thoughts on Indurain? He was so boring to watch i don't think he was on drugs!0 -
Riders habitually boosted themselves to the mid-50s, and Bjarne Riis, winner of the 1996 Tour became known in the peloton as 'Mr Sixty-percent'. In October 1995 Marco Pantani recorded a haematocrit of 60.1%, about twenty percent higher than his natural level. On one occasion the entire Banesto team tested at 48.5 to 49.5, a situation impossible in nature.missingmillar wrote:What are people's thoughts on Indurain? He was so boring to watch i don't think he was on drugs!
http://www.abcc.co.uk/Articles/DrgsTdeF.html
Former Banesto rider confesses to taking EPO
Last Updated: Thursday, October 26, 2000 | 4:02 PM ET
CBC Sports
A former rider for the Banesto team, whose leader won the Tour de France five consecutive times, told a court on Thursday that there was medically supervised doping of team cyclists that included the banned drug EPO.
The testimony came on the fourth day of a doping trial that grew out of the drug scandal that nearly wrecked the 1998 Tour de France.
A former Festina cyclist, French star Richard Virenque, and nine former team officials are on trial on a range of charges.
The trial, which opened Monday, has led to stunning testimony about systematic doping of top Festina riders, and, Thursday, allegations that the Spanish Banesto team also used banned products to enhance cyclists' performance.
"In Banesto, there was a system of doping with medical supervision," Thomas Davy, who rode with Banesto from 1995 to 1996, told the court.
Banesto's champion rider, Miguel Indurain, rode the team to five Tour de France victories, from 1991 to 1995.
"Everyone did it?" Presiding Judge Daniel Delegove asked the rider.
"Yes. I think so," Davy replied.
Calls placed to Banesto team headquarters were unanswered.
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/story/2000/10/ ... 01026.html0 -
missingmillar wrote:Dave_1 wrote:SpaceJunk wrote:markwalker wrote:
ineed...you see he finally gave up after my last post...conceding the point...he either loves seeing people taken down cause he hasn't had much success or he's extremely naive about the criminals many of the heros and their domestiques are since 1992...hundreds of Tylers....foolish postings by Mark...blame one guy when Indurain and rominger have more to answer for IMO[/quotet
What are people's thoughts on Indurain? He was so boring to watch i don't think he was on drugs!
at 20 years old, Indurain won prologue of 1985 Vuelta, lead it, won tour de'd Avenir-a race many see as being a predictor of GC talent due to the high mountains in it and 10 days long..those who win it win the TDF or ride well, lemond, Millar 2nd... Indurain was a climber domestique in 1987-89 and so his GC riding reflected this...pacing pedro delgado...who complemented his climbing a few years back, saying he now sees why MI got so good...in addition Indurain was one of the strongest TT riders and climbers in the 89 TDF winning a mountain stage, placing high in MTT, won Paris Nice twice..and sat up when in GC winning move on Saint Etienne stage of 90 TDF to wait in delgado...a 6th TDF win lost right there-EPO widely regarded as having started early 90s so MIs wins predate this product- no real evidence of it in teams prior to 1990-PDM rider died...so verdict, you decide .. IMO definitely doped, the best rider won 5 TDFs...not the drugs, because he was a great talent as shown by his results pre epo. Lemond and Hampsten consider 1991-1993 as when team wide use of EPO started..0 -
Dave you defend Indurain but then also slip this in:
"EPO widely regarded as having started early 90s so MIs wins predate this product"
Given his wins in the TDF came '91 - '95 I'm not sure this does your argument any favours. Can you clarify what you are getting at there? I ask because if, as you say, EPO use took off and may even have been rife during the years Big Mig won his Tours....well you can see where that argument will end up.0 -
And then he got his backside kicked all over Spain, only managing to finish in a lowly 84th place, he was 92nd in the 1986 Vuelta, and was a DNF in 87, 88 and 89...Dave_1 wrote:at 20 years old, Indurain won prologue of 1985 Vuelta...
Indurain's Tour performances were similarly poor, packing after just 4 stages in 85, packing after 8 stages in 86, finishing 97th in 87 and finishing 47th in 1988.
Then 'something' very significant seems to have occured between 1989 and 1990, 'coincidentally' also the time Epo hit the pro peleton.
That is nothing more than an expression of blind faith.Dave_1 wrote:the best rider won 5 TDFs...not the drugs, because he was a great talent
"A body of literature shows that EPO conveys a five- to 15-percent advantage," says Charles Yesalis, an epidemiologist at Penn State University and an expert on drugs in sports. Translated into minutes, a five-percent boost would have been the difference between first and 143rd in last year's Tour.
http://outside.away.com/outside/news/20 ... epo_1.html0 -
This is a very revealing graph...
http://www.cyclismag.com/photos/evoluti ... 180734.jpg
The yellow bars show the number of riders producing > 410 watts on the final climb of the hardest mountain stage at that particular years Tour de France. The line graph shows the average power of the winning rider on that climb ( power figures normalised for a rider and bike with combined weight of 78kg ).
The accompanying article is very good as well if you are a Francophone.
http://www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=24330 -
aurelio wrote:
And then he got his backside kicked all over Spain, only managing to finish in a lowly 84th place, he was 92nd in the 1986 Vuelta, and was a DNF in 87, 88 and 89...Dave_1 wrote:at 20 years old, Indurain won prologue of 1985 Vuelta...
Indurain's Tour performances were similarly poor, packing after just 4 stages in 85, packing after 8 stages in 86, finishing 97th in 87 and finishing 47th in 1988.
Then 'something' very significant seems to have occured between 1989 and 1990, 'coincidentally' also the time Epo hit the pro peloton.
That is nothing more than an expression of blind faith.Dave_1 wrote:the best rider won 5 TDFs...not the drugs, because he was a great talent
"A body of literature shows that EPO conveys a five- to 15-percent advantage," says Charles Yesalis, an epidemiologist at Penn State University and an expert on drugs in sports. Translated into minutes, a five-percent boost would have been the difference between first and 143rd in last year's Tour.
http://outside.away.com/outside/news/20 ... epo_1.html
he was delgado's domestique...he was a pacemaker for 5 years in the 1980s...are you completely clueless about the role of the domestique or just ignoring facts that don't suit you?0 -
I meant the wins which showed he was clearly a very good climber and time trialisit pre 1991...pre EPO as some clueless people think his TDF and Giro wins were only down to EPO when infact the picture is far far more complicated than thatskavanagh.bikeradar wrote:Dave you defend Indurain but then also slip this in:
"EPO widely regarded as having started early 90s so MIs wins predate this product"
Given his wins in the TDF came '91 - '95 I'm not sure this does your argument any favours. Can you clarify what you are getting at there? I ask because if, as you say, EPO use took off and may even have been rife during the years Big Mig won his Tours....well you can see where that argument will end up.0 -
Dave, I don't think anyone is saying Indurain was talentless oaf who became a champion thanks to Dr Conconi alone.
But maybe his big build might have made him crack in mountains, maybe he might not have been able to hold the wheel of a clean climber if he was unaided with blood boosters? Or maybe he just denied clean riders, those who opted not to dope, the chance of ever playing a part in the race?
Of course, Indurain was not alone, so many others were doing the same. Yes it's possible he was the best but that's the point of doping, it's not some uniform thing where you do/don't and your output goes up by X%, often the riders most willing (or most ignorant) to risk their health were able to win. Even Zenon Jaskula had talent but he was probably able to play a far greater role in some races thanks to massive EPO abuse.
Finally, he could have been the most talented rider in history but if he broke the rules, he doesn't deserve to win, I don't think it's right to waste much time defending people like this. No one's speaking up for the guys who were contenders one year and then dropped the next, simply because they refused to use - or couldn't get hold of! - EPO.0 -
Note the text in bold. These figures are for some imaginary 'standard' rider who weighs 78 kg along with his bike, and do not relate to the power outputs of any real individuals. A big rider like Indurain would have been producing much more power than our imaginary '78Kg including bike' rider in order to climb at the same speed. In other words the graph means next to nothing!grimpeur wrote:This is a very revealing graph...
http://www.cyclismag.com/photos/evoluti ... 180734.jpg
The yellow bars show the number of riders producing > 410 watts on the final climb of the hardest mountain stage at that particular years Tour de France. The line graph shows the average power of the winning rider on that climb ( power figures normalised for a rider and bike with combined weight of 78kg ).
Those measurements of the power outputs of real riders are more informative. I have added a break point just about where the Epo era really got into it's stride. Notice the sudden large increase in the power outputs of the stage winning riders.
Les années 80 :
Avoriaz 1985, Herrera, Hinault 375 w
Superbagnères 1986, Lemond 380 w
Alpe d'Huez 1987, Herrera 395 w, 1989 Fignon, Delgado 390 w
Les années 90 :
Luz-Ardiden 1990, Indurain, Lemond 390 w
Saint Lary 1993, Indurain, Jaskula, Rominger 430 w
Val Thorens 1994, Pantani 437 w
Alpe d'Huez 1995, Pantani 460 w
La Plagne 1995, Indurain 448 w
Arcalis 1997,Ullrich 474 w
Les Deux Alpes 1998, Pantani 450 w
Les années 2000 :
Hautacam 2000, Armstrong 449 w
Alpe d'Huez 2001, Armstrong 442 w
Luz-Ardiden 2003, Armstrong 442 w
Courchevel 2005, Valverde, Armstrong 449 w0 -
Kléber wrote:Dave, I don't think anyone is saying Indurain was talentless oaf who became a champion thanks to Dr Conconi alone.
But maybe his big build might have made him crack in mountains, maybe he might not have been able to hold the wheel of a clean climber if he was unaided with blood boosters? Or maybe he just denied clean riders, those who opted not to dope, the chance of ever playing a part in the race?
Of course, Indurain was not alone, so many others were doing the same. Yes it's possible he was the best but that's the point of doping, it's not some uniform thing where you do/don't and your output goes up by X%, often the riders most willing (or most ignorant) to risk their health were able to win. Even Zenon Jaskula had talent but he was probably able to play a far greater role in some races thanks to massive EPO abuse.
Finally, he could have been the most talented rider in history but if he broke the rules, he doesn't deserve to win, I don't think it's right to waste much time defending people like this. No one's speaking up for the guys who were contenders one year and then dropped the next, simply because they refused to use - or couldn't get hold of! - EPO.
but Jaskula was a one hit wonder...and Chiapucci EPOd up and Berzen, and Bobrik, Urgomov, Poulnikov......they could only sustain that level for a season or two and then it was downhill rapidly...Indurain is a different story...7 or 8 years very high level performance...but I agree...Indurain is not hero . Take Argentin...classy ride in 1983..., 1984...brilliant, 1986...Aurelio no doubt will say EPO was around in 1983 too...Argentin won Fleche with EPO in 1994, but he was capable of winning it without...0 -
Yes, Indurain was a talanted and powerful rider, but before Epo came along big riders simply didn't climb at the sort of speeds Indurain could.Kléber wrote:Dave, I don't think anyone is saying Indurain was talentless oaf who became a champion thanks to Dr Conconi alone. But maybe his big build might have made him crack in mountains...
David Walsh has made the very credible observation that being a big powerful rider was always a disadvantage in the mountains when the limits on performance were set by the maximium possible 'natural' oxygen uptake. As a consequence good climbers tended to be small and light.
However when Epo came on the scene, and its ability to provide more oxygen to the riders muscles, riders like Indurain who had a potentially very big 'engine' that was previously limited by the ability to fuel it with oxygen suddenly had the advantage.
http://www.competitorradio.com/details.php?show=1500 -
hmmn.. Indurain, Rominger, Pantani, Ullrich, Valverde. I'm sure something must link them all, but I just can't think what it is.0
-
aurelio wrote:
Yes, Indurain was a talanted and powerful rider, but before Epo came along big riders simply didn't climb at the sort of speeds Indurain could.Kléber wrote:Dave, I don't think anyone is saying Indurain was talentless oaf who became a champion thanks to Dr Conconi alone. But maybe his big build might have made him crack in mountains...
David Walsh has made the very credible observation that being a big powerful rider was always a disadvantage in the mountains when the limits on performance were set by the maximium possible 'natural' oxygen uptake. As a consequence good climbers tended to be small and light.
However when Epo came on the scene, and its ability to provide more oxygen to the riders muscles, riders like Indurain who had a potentially very big 'engine' that was previously limited by the ability to fuel it with oxygen suddenly had the advantage.
http://www.competitorradio.com/details.php?show=150
Bring it on
..Indurain had an exceptional physiology, lung capacity, V02, raced at 175lbs but could generate huge power outputs...his lack of response when pantani arrived in 1994 showed a bit what his limits were...Lance could handle Pantani...Indurain could not..
Indurain's VO2 95ml, lung capacity highest ever seen?0 -
Slight correction... Lance could handle Pantani the functioning Cocaine addict."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
Another post from you that is both wrong in detail (Indurain's VO2 max is usually quoted as being 87.4 or 88 ml/ kg) and shows a total lack of understanding of sports physiology. (VO2 max is not a measure of 'lung capacity'). :roll:Dave_1 wrote:Indurain's VO2 95ml, lung capacity highest ever seen?
Also, Indurain's VO2 Max, as measured at the '88' ml/kg level, and which relates to the time he was putting out 450W plus at threshold, was certainly boosted by Epo use. Just a few years earlier his threshold was around the 390W level and, as Peter Keen established when working with Chris Boardman, once you have been a pro for a couple of years, you will be lucky to gain another 5W a year withot resorting to doping.0 -
aurelio wrote:Note the text in bold. These figures are for some imaginary 'standard' rider who weighs 78 kg along with his bike, and do not relate to the power outputs of any real individuals. A big rider like Indurain would have been producing much more power than our imaginary '78Kg including bike' rider in order to climb at the same speed. In other words the graph means next to nothing!
As I said, the figures are normalised to a rider and bike weighing 78kg to make them comparable!! This means that we can compare performance by different riders as we are using their power/weight ratio and applying it to a rider and bike of constant mass, hence producing a power figure for comparison. It doesn't mean next to nothing.0 -
another post from you that shows you're very partial, biased and a little clueless about physiology. Have you got all day to keep dredging up stuff on the net...I'll keep rejecting it I assure you...will make sure your biased, very bitter view of the sport is shown up hereaurelio wrote:
Another post from you that is both wrong in detail (Indurain's VO2 max is usually quoted as being 87.4 or 88 ml/ kg) and shows a total lack of understanding of sports physiology. (VO2 max is not a measure of 'lung capacity'). :roll:Dave_1 wrote:Indurain's VO2 95ml, lung capacity highest ever seen?
Also, Indurain's VO2 Max, as measured at the '88' ml/kg level, and which relates to the time he was putting out 450W plus at threshold, was certainly boosted by Epo use. Just a few years earlier his threshold was around the 390W level and, as Peter Keen established when working with Chris Boardman, once you have been a pro for a couple of years, you will be lucky to gain another 5W a year withot resorting to doping.0 -
Sorry, my error. I should have read the full article first. :oops:grimpeur wrote:the figures are normalised to a rider and bike weighing 78kg to make them comparable!! This means that we can compare performance by different riders as we are using their power/weight ratio and applying it to a rider and bike of constant mass, hence producing a power figure for comparison. It doesn't mean next to nothing.
Yes, taken as a comparative rather than an absolute measure, the graph is interesting. For example, it suggests that between 1993 and 1995 Indurain progressively stretched the doping envelope, ramping up his level of Epo use so as to increase his 'relative' power output from around 400W to 450W. This 'set the bar' with regards doping all the way through to 1999, although 1996, the year Riis or 'Mr 60%' 'won' seems to have been the most doped in terms of the number of riders producing 'unbelievable' power outputs.
It also seems that in 2000 there were signs of the peleton becoming cleaner, or at least cutting back on the level of Epo use/ blood doping, perhaps in response to the Festina and other scandals, the UCI's 'dope up to 50% but don't go mad lads' limit and so on. Then Armstrong in part 'making hay whilst the sun shined', gradually ramped up his doping in order to secure his succession of 'wins' and thereby took things more or less back to the level Indurain had taken them a decade earlier.
Such an interpretation certainly ties in with the claims of Kimmage and so on that the sport really showed signs of wanting to change post-Festina, but that Armstrong in his ‘rage to win’ and avenge himself ensured that instead we got the same old game of doping. (And of course the enforcement of the same old omerta).0 -
aurelio wrote:
Sorry, my error. I should have read the full article first. :oops: ).grimpeur wrote:the figures are normalised to a rider and bike weighing 78kg to make them comparable!! This means that we can compare performance by different riders as we are using their power/weight ratio and applying it to a rider and bike of constant mass, hence producing a power figure for comparison. It doesn't mean next to nothing.
oh, you're so polite and so apologetic...worried about the beligerent arrogant persona you succeed in portraying of yourself on here...sorry my...0 -
Dave_1 wrote:
another post from you that shows you're very partial, biased and a little clueless about physiology.aurelio wrote:
Another post from you that is both wrong in detail (Indurain's VO2 max is usually quoted as being 87.4 or 88 ml/ kg) and shows a total lack of understanding of sports physiology. (VO2 max is not a measure of 'lung capacity'). :roll:Dave_1 wrote:Indurain's VO2 95ml, lung capacity highest ever seen?
Also, Indurain's VO2 Max, as measured at the '88' ml/kg level, and which relates to the time he was putting out 450W plus at threshold, was certainly boosted by Epo use. Just a few years earlier his threshold was around the 390W level and, as Peter Keen established when working with Chris Boardman, once you have been a pro for a couple of years, you will be lucky to gain another 5W a year withot resorting to doping.
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=Miguel+Indurain+VO2+Max
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=VO2+Max
:roll:0 -
:roll: :roll: at your ignorance of my previous postings...ignorance from you...pure and simpleaurelio wrote:Dave_1 wrote:
another post from you that shows you're very partial, biased and a little clueless about physiology.aurelio wrote:
Another post from you that is both wrong in detail (Indurain's VO2 max is usually quoted as being 87.4 or 88 ml/ kg) and shows a total lack of understanding of sports physiology. (VO2 max is not a measure of 'lung capacity'). :roll:Dave_1 wrote:Indurain's VO2 95ml, lung capacity highest ever seen?
Also, Indurain's VO2 Max, as measured at the '88' ml/kg level, and which relates to the time he was putting out 450W plus at threshold, was certainly boosted by Epo use. Just a few years earlier his threshold was around the 390W level and, as Peter Keen established when working with Chris Boardman, once you have been a pro for a couple of years, you will be lucky to gain another 5W a year withot resorting to doping.
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=Miguel+Indurain+VO2+Max
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=VO2+Max
:roll:0 -
I would be highly skeptical of Charles Yesalis's knowledge on cycling as he blatanly says that a five-percent boost would have been the difference between first and 143rd in the tour... Lets not forget that the riders are huddled in the bunch most of the time and so that 5% is made during a relatively short time (ie important climbs and TTs) where the top men are putting out MUCH more power than the guys well down the field.aurelio wrote:
"A body of literature shows that EPO conveys a five- to 15-percent advantage," says Charles Yesalis, an epidemiologist at Penn State University and an expert on drugs in sports. Translated into minutes, a five-percent boost would have been the difference between first and 143rd in last year's Tour.
http://outside.away.com/outside/news/20 ... epo_1.html
Also of great importance is that a 5% increase in power does NOT mean a 5% reduction in elapsed time - increase you're power in a TT 5% and you sure as hell won't go 5% faster.
Point is if you increase you're power output 5% you will not jump up from 143rd to first in the tour... Perhaps not the smartest guy that Charles. :oops:
Oh, and guys quit bickering so much - face to face you would probably get along pretty well. 0 -
Agreed, but even a 5% increase in threshold power during those vital summit finishes and TT's is enough to take a rider from being an also-ran to the podium. And of course, research shows that much greater gains than just 5% are to be made from Epo use and blood doping, especially if your body has a low natural haemocrit level, responds particularly well to such doping methods and/or you are prepared to push the doping envelope a bit. An increase from a 'natural' threshold of around 390W to around 450W seems to be about par for the course, a huge difference.Murr X wrote:Lets not forget that the riders are huddled in the bunch most of the time and so that 5% is made during a relatively short time (ie important climbs and TTs) where the top men are putting out MUCH more power than the guys well down the field.0 -
aurelio wrote:
Agreed, but even a 5% increase in threshold power during those vital summit finishes and TT's is enough to take a rider from being an also-ran to the podium. And of course, research shows that much greater gains than just 5% are to be made from Epo use and blood doping, especially if your body has a low natural haemocrit level, responds particularly well to such doping methods and/or you are prepared to push the doping envelope a bit. An increase from a 'natural' threshold of around 390W to around 450W seems to be about par for the course, a huge difference.Murr X wrote:Lets not forget that the riders are huddled in the bunch most of the time and so that 5% is made during a relatively short time (ie important climbs and TTs) where the top men are putting out MUCH more power than the guys well down the field.
Quite right but i think Dave_1 is baiting you.
Hes a master at that you know0
