So what's he on now, lads?

1…34689…11

Comments

  • andyp
    andyp Posts: 10,483
    storck wrote:
    Why is it aiways about Armstrong doping ?was he is he will we ever know well until proven he is innocent whether we like it or not,im a Scot and as proud as iam to see D.Millar doing well his best results were when he was doping still hes not Armstrong so thatd no good to some wingers anyone who can take 3/4 years and i mean anyone and come back and do so well up till now bloody well done,im going to be on the Ventoux when the race goes up i hope as many as possible are still in contention to make it a great spectacle for cycling its so easy to say things through forums etc and not to a person directly.go on someone please change the Record.
    I thought the Scottish education system was good. What happened?
  • pottssteve
    pottssteve Posts: 4,069
    Hi Guys and Gals,
    Just thought I'd take 5 minutes out of my holidays to drop in and I'm pleasantly surprised to see you all still dissing each other on my thread!

    Here in Malaysia, every shop is playing Michael Jackson... :D

    By the way, getting back to Mr Armstrong, maybe the black socks are soaked in something which improves his performance - WD40 for smoother cadence, perhaps...?

    Right, back to enjoying the glorious weather...

    TTFN,
    Steve
    Head Hands Heart Lungs Legs
  • aurelio_-_banned
    aurelio_-_banned Posts: 1,317
    Quote:

    "OK, with the admission that I'm making my predictions after four stages have already been completed; that I take no account for the effect of crosswinds on the bunch; and that I assume Autologous Blood Transfusions done in "micro-dose" form will remain undetectable through the end of the 2009 Tour de France"

    http://joepapp.blogspot.com/2009/07/200 ... micro.html
  • gregssmirkingrevenge
    gregssmirkingrevenge Posts: 64
    greeny12 wrote:
    reppohkcor wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    TarmacExpert wrote:
    . And gaining 40 seconds over Contador on stage 3 didn't have much to do with physiology at all, he was just in the right place to get into the large breakaway group.

    If he hadn't done that, Contador would be in yellow now.

    Which is interesting

    Don't you mean if Lance AND Cancellara hadn't??

    Yes, but if Lance hadn't sent the two Astana guys to the front when he did the Columbia break would have been reeled in - the pack was closing fast at that point.

    Nothing Cancellara could have done either, he had no team mates there. And becasue they had to do some of the chasing it f*cked Saxo Bank as well - you could see their scandos all over the place at the front of the chasing pack trying to limit the Schlecks' losses. That definitely cost them in the TTT - without Spartacus they would have been hammered.

    At the end of the day the only real beneficiary of that split was Lance - who thinks Cav would not have won that stage anyway? Also Columbia would have been a lot less knackered for the TTT as well, possibly pushing Martin into yellow.

    It's just like the old days, everyhtihing seems to be going LA's way....so far!

    Yea Lance was talking to the Skills shimano riders aswell to get them to chip in- all is fair i suppose.

    The guy is so bloody charming, heck- if i was in that break i would be working for him too.
  • Unsheath
    Unsheath Posts: 49
    So where was Armstrong's supposedly superior response to training in the years he DNF'd from the tour and the instances he was 5min down in the TTs? Or is it just evident post 98 alongside his weight loss, higher cadence and improved efficiency. Never seen how weight loss improves your FTP output on a flat TT course. And how does 1 rider in all the planet find the formula to be more efficient than anyone else on a bike? How many more myths do we need to uphold this 'Miracle'??
  • rockmount
    rockmount Posts: 761
    Unsheath wrote:
    So where was Armstrong's supposedly superior response to training in the years he DNF'd from the tour and the instances he was 5min down in the TTs? Or is it just evident post 98 alongside his weight loss, higher cadence and improved efficiency. Never seen how weight loss improves your FTP output on a flat TT course. And how does 1 rider in all the planet find the formula to be more efficient than anyone else on a bike? How many more myths do we need to uphold this 'Miracle'??
    Never heard that before !!! how original :roll:
    .. who said that, internet forum people ?
  • Monty Dog
    Monty Dog Posts: 20,614
    rockmount wrote:
    Unsheath wrote:
    So where was Armstrong's supposedly superior response to training in the years he DNF'd from the tour and the instances he was 5min down in the TTs? Or is it just evident post 98 alongside his weight loss, higher cadence and improved efficiency. Never seen how weight loss improves your FTP output on a flat TT course. And how does 1 rider in all the planet find the formula to be more efficient than anyone else on a bike? How many more myths do we need to uphold this 'Miracle'??
    Never heard that before !!! how original :roll:

    The 'messiah syndrome' claims another gormless, willing victim..
    Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..
  • rockmount
    rockmount Posts: 761
    Monty Dog wrote:
    rockmount wrote:
    Unsheath wrote:
    So where was Armstrong's supposedly superior response to training in the years he DNF'd from the tour and the instances he was 5min down in the TTs? Or is it just evident post 98 alongside his weight loss, higher cadence and improved efficiency. Never seen how weight loss improves your FTP output on a flat TT course. And how does 1 rider in all the planet find the formula to be more efficient than anyone else on a bike? How many more myths do we need to uphold this 'Miracle'??
    Never heard that before !!! how original :roll:

    The 'messiah syndrome' claims another gormless, willing victim..
    Another condescending twat profers judgement without knowledge !
    .. who said that, internet forum people ?
  • redddraggon
    redddraggon Posts: 10,862
    What's so likeable about Lance anyway?
    I like bikes...

    Twitter
    Flickr
  • il_principe
    il_principe Posts: 9,155
    andyp wrote:
    Why is it that those people who believe Armstrong have to adopt his pathetic "all those who question me are haters" mentality.

    I don't hate Lance Armstrong. I admire some of what he does, but I also think he doped to win the Tour and there is, to my mind, compelling evidence of this. Feel free to disagree but stop using childish insults like 'haters' to describe those who don't agree with you.

    You Lance doubters are all so pathetic. I hope you never get called up for jury service!

    Fact is he's not tested positive. Ligget was saying yesterday that at one stage this tour LA was tested 3 times in 48 hours. So either he's using something no other cyclist has ever discovered, something developed deep in the basement labs of LAF, some miracle drug tested only on Lance , or perhaps he's simply clean? :roll:

    Whatever happened to "Innocent until proven guilty"?

    I'm enjoying his comeback - it adds spice to the tour and raises money for a foundation that do good work. No bad thing in my book.
  • andyp
    andyp Posts: 10,483
    Il Principe wrote:
    You Lance doubters are all so pathetic. I hope you never get called up for jury service!

    Fact is he's not tested positive. Ligget was saying yesterday that at one stage this tour LA was tested 3 times in 48 hours. So either he's using something no other cyclist has ever discovered, something developed deep in the basement labs of LAF, some miracle drug tested only on Lance , or perhaps he's simply clean? :roll:

    Whatever happened to "Innocent until proven guilty"?
    Can you point me to the tests that Ullrich, Basso and Rasmussen failed? Has it not crossed your mind that maybe, just maybe, the tests aren't perfect and don't catch every misdemeanour? The evidence for this view point is widely available, i.e. no EPO urine test until 2000, despite EPO being widely used in the pro peleton throughout the 1990s. Let us not forget that evidence of EPO was found in samples given by Armstrong from the 1999 Tour.

    There is still no test for autologous blood doping, rumoured to have been Armstrong's preferred preparation during his Tour winning reign.

    Personally I hope you never get called up for jury service as gullibility in a juror is not an attractive trait.
  • Kléber
    Kléber Posts: 6,842
    Il Principe, we've been through this before but I'll repeat his samples from 1999 did test positive for EPO but there can be no sanction as the test was not a proper anti-doping protocol. Remember that back in 1999 there was no test for EPO, so a rider could take as much as they like knowing they could not be caught.

    Practically every GC contender in the late 1990s was using EPO, to the point where it's not a big deal. I don't mean that in a dismissive way, abuse of EPO is risky and its distorted many race results, just that anyone who counted at the time was using EPO, it's not a big deal to get hung up on Armstrong, he was just using the same methods as everyone else.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Il Principe wrote:
    You Lance doubters are all so pathetic. I hope you never get called up for jury service!

    Just done it.

    You're looking at a postiive test as the only evidence. But if you took everything into account I would challenge anyone to be absolutely certain. You may choose to believe but ultimately that's up to you.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • andyp
    andyp Posts: 10,483
    There is also a major difference between guilt established in a court of law and guilt established via a sporting sanction.
  • il_principe
    il_principe Posts: 9,155
    andyp wrote:
    Il Principe wrote:

    You Lance doubters are all so pathetic. I hope you never get called up for jury service!

    Fact is he's not tested positive. Ligget was saying yesterday that at one stage this tour LA was tested 3 times in 48 hours. So either he's using something no other cyclist has ever discovered, something developed deep in the basement labs of LAF, some miracle drug tested only on Lance , or perhaps he's simply clean? :roll:

    Whatever happened to "Innocent until proven guilty"?
    Can you point me to the tests that Ullrich, Basso and Rasmussen failed? Has it not crossed your mind that maybe, just maybe, the tests aren't perfect and don't catch every misdemeanour? The evidence for this view point is widely available, i.e. no EPO urine test until 2000, despite EPO being widely used in the pro peloton throughout the 1990s. Let us not forget that evidence of EPO was found in samples given by Armstrong from the 1999 Tour.

    There is still no test for autologous blood doping, rumoured to have been Armstrong's preferred preparation during his Tour winning reign.

    Personally I hope you never get called up for jury service as gullibility in a juror is not an attractive trait.

    It's nothing but conjecture on your part is it though? Maybe the tests aren't perfect, just 'cos other riders doped doesn't prove LA did. There is no evidence of " EPO was found in samples given by Armstrong from the 1999 Tour" AFAIK there are just allegations made by L’Equipe.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    [quote="Il Principe"[It's nothing but conjecture on your part is i thought? Maybe the tests aren't perfect, just 'cos other riders doped doesn't prove LA did. There is no evidence of " EPO was found in samples given by Armstrong from the 1999 Tour" AFAIK there are just allegations made by L’Equipe.[/quote]

    The samples were Armstrongs - Linked via the paperwork he signed. They had EPO in them.

    Neither of these facts has much to do with the newspaper. They just put them together.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • Monty Dog
    Monty Dog Posts: 20,614
    I can accept it if people were prepared to admit their guilt and then move on - what peeves a lot of people off is the rabid determination by which some people e.g. Landis, Hamilton and others are prepared to take to defend themselves in the face of the evidence. You also make the naive assumption about 'innocence until proven guilty' which is a precedent in law whereas in sport the rule of 'absolute liability' for doping offences is assumed. Give up on the messiah complex and face facts, there's too much of a stink to make it go away and litigation, bullying and media-manipulation are not the means to rebuild a discredited reputation.
    Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..
  • Homer J
    Homer J Posts: 920
    Along with the record of most TDF wins i think he may get in the guiness book for the most threads started about him :wink:

    Love him or hate him we just can't stop talking about him.
  • andyp
    andyp Posts: 10,483
    Il Principe wrote:
    It's nothing but conjecture on your part is it though? Maybe the tests aren't perfect, just 'cos other riders doped doesn't prove LA did. There is no evidence of " EPO was found in samples given by Armstrong from the 1999 Tour" AFAIK there are just allegations made by L’Equipe.

    I'd suggest you actually go and read about the whole affair before you start arguing about it.
  • dave_1
    dave_1 Posts: 9,512
    iainf72 wrote:
    [quote="Il Principe"[It's nothing but conjecture on your part is i thought? Maybe the tests aren't perfect, just 'cos other riders doped doesn't prove LA did. There is no evidence of " EPO was found in samples given by Armstrong from the 1999 Tour" AFAIK there are just allegations made by L’Equipe.

    The samples were Armstrongs - Linked via the paperwork he signed. They had EPO in them.

    Neither of these facts has much to do with the newspaper. They just put them together.[/quote]

    one of the B samples of LAs was missing...they did not test them all. Ashenden explained it would be impossible to spike the samples though...so , what would a jury decide? The chain of custody is dodgy re his 99 samples...but spiking near impossible...unless contamination? :? Anyway, Ullrich and Basso show LA must have drugged himself to beat them ...1999 is definitely a big question mark
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKBacb2V ... ata_player
  • Pokerface
    Pokerface Posts: 7,960
    I am a MASSIVE Lance fan. Have followed him since 1999. A few years back read his books and they inspired me to get back on my bike and start cycling again (and lost 80 pounds in the process!).

    And as big a fan as I am, I have no doubt whatsoever that he was doping back in the day. Whether EPO or his own blood - doesn't matter. The way I look at it though - is so was everyone else - and he was STILL better than them.

    These days - I suspect he's doing it with hard work. The amount he is being tested (and the tests that exist)( - make it hard to believe he could get away with doping today.
  • Gazzaputt
    Gazzaputt Posts: 3,227
    All ifs and buts nothing proven in concrete.

    This tour Lance has stuck a very large 2 fingers up to the doubters and conspirators.

    Well done I say and would love to see him get an 8th stage.
  • barriecusvein
    barriecusvein Posts: 34
    the argument is settled people, I have found his method:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8147104.stm
    FCN: 8

    "This is what hydrogen does given space and 13 billion years"
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Gazzaputt wrote:
    All ifs and buts nothing proven in concrete.

    This tour Lance has stuck a very large 2 fingers up to the doubters and conspirators.

    Has he? How exactly?
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • andyp
    andyp Posts: 10,483
    Gazzaputt wrote:
    All ifs and buts nothing proven in concrete.

    This tour Lance has stuck a very large 2 fingers up to the doubters and conspirators.

    Some people just can't face facts. EPO was found in Armstrong's urine. What more evidence do you need exactly? Video footage of him injecting himself? Even then, there'd be some who'd claim it was faked, probably by the same people who faked the moon landings eh?
  • afx237vi
    afx237vi Posts: 12,630
    Stanley Kubrick is dead, last time I looked.
  • dave_1
    dave_1 Posts: 9,512
    I have never met him...have you?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKBacb2V ... ata_player
  • donrhummy
    donrhummy Posts: 2,329
    Il Principe wrote:
    andyp wrote:

    You Lance doubters are all so pathetic. I hope you never get called up for jury service!

    Fact is he's not tested positive.

    Well...I partially agree. He HAS tested positive, once. In 1999, there were traces of a corticosteroid in his sample. He was able to give a medical certificate showing the use of it to treat a saddle sore and the UCI then gave him a medical waiver for it. There is no proven performance gain from that drug, however, it was a banned drug and you are supposed to get a waiver PRIOR to using it.

    Other than that, I agree that Lance has not been proven guilty. Reading the finding by the dutch anti-doping head, Vrijman, I think he conclusively proved that the chain of custody was completely absent and there was no way to ensure that the samples were 1. lance's, 2. never tampered with. That IS important. It doesn't mean Lance is innocent, it simply means he wasn't proven guilty.
  • afx237vi
    afx237vi Posts: 12,630
    Stanley Kubrick? No, but I think there's pretty compelling evidence to support the theory that he faked Lance Armstrong.
  • donrhummy
    donrhummy Posts: 2,329
    Pokerface wrote:
    I am a MASSIVE Lance fan. Have followed him since 1999. A few years back read his books and they inspired me to get back on my bike and start cycling again (and lost 80 pounds in the process!).

    And as big a fan as I am, I have no doubt whatsoever that he was doping back in the day. Whether EPO or his own blood - doesn't matter. The way I look at it though - is so was everyone else - and he was STILL better than them.

    These days - I suspect he's doing it with hard work. The amount he is being tested (and the tests that exist)( - make it hard to believe he could get away with doping today.

    Your arguments do NOT hold up with respect to science. Look at the power outputs he has from this year and compare them to those of his TDF victories. If you're correct that he WAS doping but now is not, then EPO (and any other drugs) has next to zero effect. Science says this isn't the case.

    Those drugs have a HUGE impact on the ability of a rider to:

    1. Recover MUCH quicker from hard efforts - both within a ride and from day to day
    2. Output a much higher level of watts than their natural VO2 would allow
    3. Sustain higher levels for longer periods

    Perhaps the most important gain from those drugs is that a rider can do a 100% effort for hours on end and the next day be 100% recovered, as though they'd simply rested the day before. See this: http://outside.away.com/outside/bodywor ... est_1.html

Categories