So what's he on now, lads?
Comments
-
The research into the use of Viagra as a PED is interesting in so much as it shows just how much individual esponses to doping can vary. Quote:jackhammer111 wrote:I found this interesting one too: "Viagra Boosts High Altitude Exercise Up To 45% For Some Cyclists".
A team of scientists from Stanford University and the Veteran Affairs department of the Palo Alto Health Care system carried out an experiment in which cyclists completed an identical time to exhaustion test at altitude with and without Viagra, or sildenafil as it’s known in scientific circles. On average, performance was improved when taking Viagra by a whopping 15 per cent. But the average result masked what was really going on.
Some responded to the Viagra in an incredibly positive way, recording a 39 per cent average improvement, while others found no improvement or even a slight decline in performance.
http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/articl ... t-up-20345
Doping does NOT create a 'level playing field' and some riders benefit far more from doping than others. Given the huge differences doping can make, a 'super responder' to doping can beat even the most naturally talented rider, even if in a clean race they would come nowhere.0 -
No more absurd than the fact that riders thought that his, ahem, 'training plans' were worth up to 15% of their gross income...jackhammer111 wrote:The idea that Ferrari was some evil genius is absurd.0 -
The Viagra boost at higher altitudes has now't to do with cycling!!!!!, it is to assist the Pork Sword to reach further into THE LOVE TUNNEL during days away from the rigors of training & attempting to achieve glory on the saddle.Hi,I am returnig to pedal power after a longish period of drying out my Vega+nail on plates.My first serious bike was a 1937 Hetchins Curly(track frame)My current rocket is a Bianchi Reparto Corse,Gold Race 600.A nice little Italian.0
-
jackhammer111 wrote:
I didn't say only 10 guys were doing it. I'm saying even doped the rest of the field can't beat the same top ten guys.
well lets say that's true your still left arguing whether the order in which these 10 guys arrive in Paris i dictated by the strengths of everyone else to a lesser or greater degreeHis results are because he's a better athlete and better racer.
yes he is quite an athlete,,, how much he would have or could achieve if doping hadn't been factor is hard to gauge..
who would he have lost too in his 7 year run if he hadn't?"If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0 -
jackhammer111 wrote:The era of team systematized doping, primarily EPO based is over.
From October 2007, certainly not 10 years ago...
On Monday evening McQuaid said, that he believes the days of organized doping in cycling are over, and that doping violations today is an individual matter for some riders.
This statement made Jörg Jaksche roll his eyes and respond with a smile.
”Maybe I have just been unlucky, because I have been on six teams, and on all six there has been organized doping,” Jaksche said.
http://www.thepulse2007.org/?p=730 -
aurelio wrote:
The research into the use of Viagra as a PED is interesting ins so much as it shows just how much individual esponses to doping can vary. Quote:jackhammer111 wrote:I found this interesting one too: "Viagra Boosts High Altitude Exercise Up To 45% For Some Cyclists".
A team of scientists from Stanford University and the Veteran Affairs department of the Palo Alto Health Care system carried out an experiment in which cyclists completed an identical time to exhaustion test at altitude with and without Viagra, or sildenafil as it’s known in scientific circles. On average, performance was improved when taking Viagra by a whopping 15 per cent. But the average result masked what was really going on.
Some responded to the Viagra in an incredibly positive way, recording a 39 per cent average improvement, while others found no improvement or even a slight decline in performance.
http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/articl ... t-up-20345
Doping does NOT create a 'level playing field' and some riders benefit far more from doping than others. Given the huge differences doping can make, a 'super responder' to doping can beat even the most naturally talented rider, even if in a clean race they would come nowhere.
jeeze.. the viagra thing was a joke...i never said Viagra was the same as EPO. find me someone who doesn't do better on EPO. Find me someone who doesn't perform better when the O2 is delivered to the muscle in larger quantity.
hey, I'm done with is thread. I no longer interests me. You are dancing on the head of pins.
I say Lance did not win seven times in a row simply because he had better dope, more dope, better doctors, or secret drugs, and he's proving that by coming back in these circumstances, including being older.
Some of what you say might prove it could be done once or twice but not over such a long period of time. He is that good. Get over used to it. He'll be back next year too.
I'm not spending any m ore of my time knocking down your straw men or chasing red herrings.0 -
To say that his 'wins' were down to an expertly managed doping program ('coinciding' with his teaming up with Ferrari) makes a lot more sense than to argue it was down to his 'natural talent' given that he had his arse kicked all over France the first 3 times he rode the Tour, only managing to finish once and that one and a half hours behind the winner. Even in the TT's where he said he was trying to improve by a minute a year, he went nowhere, consistently losing around 6 minutes in the first flat TT.jackhammer111 wrote:Lances domination lasted 7 years. There is no way that happened because of some secret program that gave him an unfair advantage.0 -
That is nothing more than a statement of blind faith, and for all you really know, his current performances may well still be due to doping...jackhammer111 wrote:I say Lance did not win seven times in a row simply because he had better dope, more dope, better doctors, or secret drugs, and he's proving that by coming back in these circumstances, including being older.0 -
aurelio wrote:jackhammer111 wrote:The era of team systematized doping, primarily EPO based is over.
From October 2007, certainly not 10 years ago...
On Monday evening McQuaid said, that he believes the days of organized doping in cycling are over, and that doping violations today is an individual matter for some riders.
This statement made Jörg Jaksche roll his eyes and respond with a smile.
”Maybe I have just been unlucky, because I have been on six teams, and on all six there has been organized doping,” Jaksche said.
http://www.thepulse2007.org/?p=73
Why do you bother to watch? What would you do that isn't being done?
what about garmin and columbia?0 -
aurelio wrote:
That is nothing more than a statement of blind faith, and for all you really know, his current performances may well still be due to doping...jackhammer111 wrote:I say Lance did not win seven times in a row simply because he had better dope, more dope, better doctors, or secret drugs, and he's proving that by coming back in these circumstances, including being older.
and for all you really know, he might be clean. I've got a butt load of tests on him on my side. what have you got?
this is your version of the sport.
needle sticks, blood bags, microdosing epo plasma expaders drain blood into coke cans more needle sticks hgh injections portable blood testing labs go train act normal more needle sticks drain blood out put blood back no to much drain some into coke cans flush it down the toilet more needle sticks altered genes more blood bags more needle sick (sic) who knows where to hide the tracks slink down the hall secret door hidden refrigerators pay off the cops pay off uci pay off the team mates pay off the massuse who notices you blew out a vein with a needle stick... oh.. and win the race.0 -
What about them? Pharmstrong rides for Bruyneel / Astana!jackhammer111 wrote:what about garmin and columbia?0 -
Can you punctuate that so that it makes some sort of coherent sense?jackhammer111 wrote:needle sticks, blood bags, microdosing epo plasma expaders drain blood into coke cans more needle sticks hgh injections portable blood testing labs go train act normal more needle sticks drain blood out put blood back no to much drain some into coke cans flush it down the toilet more needle sticks altered genes more blood bags more needle sick (sic) who knows where to hide the tracks slink down the hall secret door hidden refrigerators pay off the cops pay off uci pay off the team mates pay off the massuse who notices you blew out a vein with a needle stick... oh.. and win the race.0 -
jackhammer, you have a wonderfully optimistic and polarised view and I applaud you for your blind faith. Go away and read a few books including Matt Rendell's book on Pantani and see why we treat such 'miracle' performances with contempt. You may find it hard to believe that our passion for cycling maybe as strong as your own, but is tinged by a sense of realism based on an objective view of life and reality rather than someone's PR hype.Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..0
-
editContador is the Greatest0
-
Monty Dog wrote:jackhammer, you have a wonderfully optimistic and polarised view and I applaud you for your blind faith. Go away and read a few books including Matt Rendell's book on Pantani and see why we treat such 'miracle' performances with contempt. You may find it hard to believe that our passion for cycling maybe as strong as your own, but is tinged by a sense of realism based on an objective view of life and reality rather than someone's PR hype.
You got the passord for the Aurelio account?
0 -
Monty Dog wrote:jackhammer, you have a wonderfully optimistic and polarised view and I applaud you for your blind faith. Go away and read a few books including Matt Rendell's book on Pantani and see why we treat such 'miracle' performances with contempt. You may find it hard to believe that our passion for cycling maybe as strong as your own, but is tinged by a sense of realism based on an objective view of life and reality rather than someone's PR hype.
I'd appreciate it if you'd stop insulting my inteligence. I don't need to read that one more book to understand the sordid past the sport has sometimes had and I'm widely read and well informed on the issue of doping. I don't know you well enough to know if my knowledge of the sport is deeper than yours but in not an Armstrong fanboy that shows up for the tour and then goes away until next year. I watch the entire season on the internet in American, not just Versus on TV. I participate in forums and have moderated threads on monitoring power output and the feasibility of total hemoglobin mass testing. I have the Ashenden interview bookmarked and have read the entire Vrijman report and have a copy of it in PDF on my desktop. I've read Coyle, Gore et al, and Coyle's replies. I know human biochemistry and physiology and understand the science of doping and testing. I could go on...
As you should know if you know as much as you claim, EPO gave for the first time a clear unfair advantage that could not be overcome by clean riders.
Before EPO there were cheats, even Merckx go kicked out of the Giro once, but there weren't huge gains to be had from it.
I now think with the Passport approach to monitoring, were a close to being back to that, but unlike then, the system for catching cheats is many fold greater, therefor creating a situation where riders have to seriously think about the smaller gains being worth the risk.
If you have better ideas on how to clean up the sport I'm all ears.
Lance is clean, the peloton is the cleanest in over a decade and he can compete against them. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'm all ears.
I don't do blind faith.
2 months ago I was rooting for Alberto just hoping Lance wouldn't embarrass himself. Then the venom against him ramped up to a level beyond sanity and I've decided I'd love to see him stick it to his doubters so I'm rooting for him as underdog.0 -
Maybe you are right, but I had thought that you were also arguing that he was clean when he 'won' his 7 previous Tours, which is a whole different kettle of fish.jackhammer111 wrote:Lance is clean, the peloton is the cleanest in over a decade and he can compete against them.
By the way, as part of your wide reading have you read 'From Lance to Landis'?0 -
aurelio wrote:
Maybe you are right, but I had thought that you were also arguing that he was clean when he 'won' his 7 previous Tours, which is a whole different kettle of fish.jackhammer111 wrote:Lance is clean, the peloton is the cleanest in over a decade and he can compete against them.
By the way, as part of your wide reading have you read 'From Lance to Landis'?
I'm very wary about talking as though Lance being dirty in 99 because in the end he was not sanctioned and it's clear L'Equipe was out to destroy him, journalistic ethic be dammed. I know that if I'm ever accused of a crime I want all of the evidence against me held to the highest standards there are. Especially when the evidence is scientific.
I think cycling is a long established culture and the peloton is like a living organism that has very sharp senses and a long memory. It knows what's out there and what doors are cracked. You may put something over on it once, but seven times? The peloton is insulted by the thought.
I can't hate the entire peloton over a decade for taking advantage of all the things in there arsenal. If I did, I couldn't watch the sport. It's very weird to think that the same riders that will wait for a fallen rider may have had a blood bag hanging from their arm the night before.
I think I know Walsh's side of the story. I've read reviews of the book that show me there's nothing in there I haven't already heard about and know another side to the story. I want to read Floyd's book. Have you? I think Floyd needs the money more than the guy that's making a living off of being anti lance already.0 -
Jackhammer, you seem to worry about others' straw men & red herrings & then....
You are missing a fundamental difference between "pot belge" & EPO though, aren't you? You've read plenty & you already know the huge differences in responses between riders with EPO that aren't there with amphetamines. So you're comparing chalk & cheese & claim to be upset at straw men...jackhammer111 wrote:
As you should know if you know as much as you claim, EPO gave for the first time a clear unfair advantage that could not be overcome by clean riders.
Before EPO there were cheats, even Merckx go kicked out of the Giro once, but there weren't huge gains to be had from it.
You base your entire argument on your perception of something that you have no information about???? Well, that's got me convinced!!!I now think with the Passport approach to monitoring, were a close to being back to that, but unlike then, the system for catching cheats is many fold greater, therefor creating a situation where riders have to seriously think about the smaller gains being worth the risk.
Your argument is supposition & yet you still claim that arguments without definitive proof are without substance. FFS, do you take everyone to be a moron?
I like that you have a passion for what you believe, but will you please quit insulting folk by playing "one rule for you, one rule for me." It's both moronic & insulting & I'd thank you to desist.
There's a a fantastic "search" function on this (& many other) forum(s), why don't you have a wee go at using it before using more straw men?If you have better ideas on how to clean up the sport I'm all ears.
Seriously, you need to avoid straw men if you're going to criticise others for using them, you know how dumb you'll look otherwise, no?Lance is clean, the peloton is the cleanest in over a decade and he can compete against them. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'm all ears.
I don't do blind faith.
You are just taking the p*ss now, aren't you? This is the post-modern doping thread, no? You sure don't need anyone to point out the abject stupidity of the above statement, unless this is a PM p*ss-tke, in which case, you really do....
Bless... There are various responses beyond sanity though, aren't there?2 months ago I was rooting for Alberto just hoping Lance wouldn't embarrass himself. Then the venom against him ramped up to a level beyond sanity and I've decided I'd love to see him stick it to his doubters so I'm rooting for him as underdog.0 -
Richrd2205 wrote:You are just taking the p*ss now, aren't you? This is the post-modern doping thread, no? You sure don't need anyone to point out the abject stupidity of the above statement, unless this is a PM p*ss-tke, in which case, you really do....
Do you really expect me to try having a conversation with you after reading that?0 -
Hi There!
You people do realise that it's been nearly a week since I posted this joke thread, and you're still at it....
My holiday is over (great, thanks), and I'm getting on the 'plane in an hour or so.
It's good to see Lance doing so well, third overall I gather, though TdF coverage here in malaysia has been minmal, so it may have changed by now. I understand even a French rider won a stage the other day - so anything can happen.....Ah well, can't wait to get back to HK and get out on the bike, which is what it's all about really, isn't it?
SteveHead Hands Heart Lungs Legs0 -
Sanctioned or not (and it is clear that the UCI were determined to protect Armstrong - here's another report for your desktop: http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/docu ... report.pdf) there is overwhelming and credible scientific evidence that Armstrong was using Epo in 1999.jackhammer111 wrote:I'm very wary about talking as though Lance being dirty in 99 because in the end he was not sanctioned
Ever heard of investigative journalism? Watergate? George Seldes? That said I do realise that in the US anyone trying to expose the truth regarding powerful figures and institutions is portrayed as a 'muckraker' and so on, primarily by those who would like to keep the corruption of the powerful out of the public eye, a tradition that ironically enough goes back to the days of Roosevelt.jackhammer111 wrote:it's clear L'Equipe was out to destroy him, journalistic ethic be dammed.
What you say reminds me of the Bill Hicks piece about fundamentalist Christians and dinosaur fossils.jackhammer111 wrote:I know that if I'm ever accused of a crime I want all of the evidence against me held to the highest standards there are. Especially when the evidence is scientific.
'Positive tests for Epo? God put those there to test our faith.'
Never heard of the 'doping omerta' in cycling? And of course Armstrong has been one of its greatest enforcers...jackhammer111 wrote:I think cycling is a long established culture and the peloton is like a living organism that has very sharp senses and a long memory. It knows what's out there and what doors are cracked. You may put something over on it once, but seven times? The peloton is insulted by the thought.
From what you say I thought you hadn't read 'From Lance to Landis', and yet you claim to be informed on the subject of whether he doped or not! As to Walsh making a living from being 'anti-Armstrong', the truth is very different and if he really wanted to make money on the back of Armstrong, he would have made vastly more by writing yet another Armstrong hagiography. The Amazon.com sales rank for 'It's not about the bike' is 744, for 'From Lance to Landis' it is 87,173!jackhammer111 wrote:I think I know Walsh's side of the story. the guy that's making a living off of being anti lance.0 -
JOKE THREAD MY ARSEHi,I am returnig to pedal power after a longish period of drying out my Vega+nail on plates.My first serious bike was a 1937 Hetchins Curly(track frame)My current rocket is a Bianchi Reparto Corse,Gold Race 600.A nice little Italian.0
-
If you have the time to construct and initiate and then follow the replies with more JOKE COMMENTS then you could well have a need to GET ON YOUR BIKE.Hi,I am returnig to pedal power after a longish period of drying out my Vega+nail on plates.My first serious bike was a 1937 Hetchins Curly(track frame)My current rocket is a Bianchi Reparto Corse,Gold Race 600.A nice little Italian.0
-
*sigh* never get tired of reading about LA his alleged doping.. I wish he hadn't come back, threads like this wouldn't exist, and we could all just watch what we love, namely cycling.0
-
I can't disagree(except for the bit about the return of LA) at all with your input-bikerZA.All this KANGAROO COURT S*IT achieves vey little-except folks with allegedly the same interest in its various formats throwing mud at a wall(& at each other) that has a protective surface(SH*T WON'T STICK ON A FRICTIONLESS SURFACE).Many an innocent was Knee Capped in the name of justice;it has been said.Hi,I am returnig to pedal power after a longish period of drying out my Vega+nail on plates.My first serious bike was a 1937 Hetchins Curly(track frame)My current rocket is a Bianchi Reparto Corse,Gold Race 600.A nice little Italian.0
-
aurelio wrote:
Sanctioned or not (and it is clear that the UCI were determined to protect Armstrong - here's another report for your desktop: http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/docu ... report.pdf) there is overwhelming and credible scientific evidence that Armstrong was using Epo in 1999.jackhammer111 wrote:I'm very wary about talking as though Lance being dirty in 99 because in the end he was not sanctioned
Ever heard of investigative journalism? Watergate? George Seldes? That said I do realise that in the US anyone trying to expose the truth regarding powerful figures and institutions is portrayed as a 'muckraker' and so on, primarily by those who would like to keep the corruption of the powerful out of the public eye, a tradition that ironically enough goes back to the days of Roosevelt.jackhammer111 wrote:it's clear L'Equipe was out to destroy him, journalistic ethic be dammed.
What you say reminds me of the Bill Hicks piece about fundamentalist Christians and dinosaur fossils.jackhammer111 wrote:I know that if I'm ever accused of a crime I want all of the evidence against me held to the highest standards there are. Especially when the evidence is scientific.
'Positive tests for Epo? God put those there to test our faith.'
Never heard of the 'doping omerta' in cycling? And of course Armstrong has been one of its greatest enforcers...jackhammer111 wrote:I think cycling is a long established culture and the peloton is like a living organism that has very sharp senses and a long memory. It knows what's out there and what doors are cracked. You may put something over on it once, but seven times? The peloton is insulted by the thought.
From what you say I thought you hadn't read 'From Lance to Landis', and yet you claim to be informed on the subject of whether he doped or not! As to Walsh making a living from being 'anti-Armstrong', the truth is very different and if he really wanted to make money on the back of Armstrong, he would have made vastly more by writing yet another Armstrong hagiography. The Amazon.com sales rank for 'It's not about the bike' is 744, for 'From Lance to Landis' it is 87,173!jackhammer111 wrote:I think I know Walsh's side of the story. the guy that's making a living off of being anti lance.
Maybe I should have been more clear. I'm not so uncomfortable with the idea that he may have been dirty in 99, I'm just uncomfortable making statements or proclamations that he was because I believe sceintific evidence is not a subject to be taken lightly.
RE: Watergate, I'd bet I know ten times what you know about Watergate. The list of crimes commited by Nixon and his men wouldn't fit in this entire page. He clearly would have been conviced of crimes had Ford not issued the pardon. The evedence was a tad stronger than something that had been laying around unprotected in a freezer for years. L'Equipe's cycling coverage is more akin to the National Enquirer or the Sun. To compare their sports department to Bernstein and Woodward or other great investigative journalist is a bad joke. You know who owns them right? Have you heard the term "conflict of interests"?
RE: the book..No, it's not a case where "the book shall set me free". The book is a rehash of thing already out there, proving what? That he could have been doing what the peloton was doing? Why don't you read Floyd's book?
If you believe Lance is, was and always has been a fraud, then the sport is, was, and always has been a fraud and your favorite rider is just your favorite con artist.0 -
jackhammer111 wrote:If you believe Lance is, was and always has been a fraud, then the sport is, was, and always has been a fraud and your favorite rider is just your favorite con artist.
Sadly that's the truth.
People here believe in Contador and Schleck and hold them against evil Armstrong. People see what they want to see.
Wiggins is an indicator of what can be achieved clean. Watch as he is blown away in the third week.It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.0 -
Timoid. wrote:jackhammer111 wrote:If you believe Lance is, was and always has been a fraud, then the sport is, was, and always has been a fraud and your favorite rider is just your favorite con artist.
Sadly that's the truth.
People here believe in Contador and Schleck and hold them against evil Armstrong. People see what they want to see.
Wiggins is (probably) an indicator of what can be achieved clean. Watch as he is blown away in the third week.
Sorry Timoid, had to fix that for you.Dan0 -
Timoid. wrote:jackhammer111 wrote:If you believe Lance is, was and always has been a fraud, then the sport is, was, and always has been a fraud and your favorite rider is just your favorite con artist.
Sadly that's the truth.
People here believe in Contador and Schleck and hold them against evil Armstrong. People see what they want to see.
Wiggins is an indicator of what can be achieved clean. Watch as he is blown away in the third week.
And if he doesn't get blown away in the third week we will have a new thread called 'So what's Wiggin's on now, lads?' :roll:0
