Floyd -- he wrote us a letter...

ratsbeyfus

BikingBernie wrote:

CNA: You retired at 34 in 1998 and then immediately dominated the Tour de France from 1999 as the manager. What is the secret sauce that you added to dominate for the next 12 years with Lance and then Alberto?

JB: Do you really expect me to tell you the secret sauce? Actually that sauce is public knowledge nowadays...



http://www.cyclingnewsasia.com/features ... -bruyneel-

More on trhe sectret sauce:
JB: ... getting back to this secret sauce, as you call it. It's not specific to cycling or cyclists - It really can apply to all different areas of life - from sports to business to just life in general.

I'm off camping with the kids this afternoon... must remember to take a bag of blood out of the freezer before I go, so that it'll be defrosted before tea-time.

BikingBernie

saymush wrote:

Bernie, very naughty, hes referring to his book

I know, I am guilty of shameless, out of context quotation, but the lines did make me smile.

amd-sco

Levi's doping offence citation from 1996

"A USA Cycling disciplinary panel recommended that Levi Leipheimer receive a three-month suspension as a result of a violation of Bylaw N., Section 2, Part 4, Prohibited Practices, stemming from competition at the USCF Amateur Men's Criterium Championship, Aug. 18 in Grandview Heights, Ohio. That recommendation has been upheld by Lisa Voight, USA Cycling executive director. The 23-year- old Leipheimer will be required to return his national championship jersey, medal and prize money. He will also be suspended from the U.S. National Team for the same period. The decision is subject to appeal."

Not strictly relevant but dude's got history

rapid_uphill

It would be nice to know all the names of those people mentioned in the Landis emails, maybe then we could crack this case.

amd-sco

I've not heard anyone mention Emma O'Reilly and questioning her - she had a lot to say a few years age re: LA , JB & USPS/Disco - and iirc she fell out massively with JB that's why she left in the end wasn't it.

Anyone heard anything?

paulcuthbert

Timoid. wrote:

paulcuthbert wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

Bhí sé ar fheabhas ar aon nós.

Tá sé drochbhéasach an teanga a labhairt mícheart

Tienes una problema con mi irlandés?

Ano. To je špatné. Musíme mluvit česky!! To je nejlepší

dave_1

BikingBernie wrote:

CNA: You retired at 34 in 1998 and then immediately dominated the Tour de France from 1999 as the manager. What is the secret sauce that you added to dominate for the next 12 years with Lance and then Alberto?

JB: Do you really expect me to tell you the secret sauce? Actually that sauce is public knowledge nowadays...



http://www.cyclingnewsasia.com/features ... -bruyneel-

I followed the sport back in 1987 and Johan Bruyneel was , I think top 3 in Tour of EEC/Avenir or won it...he was shit hot, before EPO, not denying he got trained in hot sauce methods very well at ONCE. Armstrong likewise...why people argue LAs whole career was down to epoh when he was just so so up to 1996 and fantastic afterward...I admit I don't know..the epoh must have been twice as good or he was just simply developing athlete-which I believe he was...I guess both were fantastically talented athletes so it is no surprise they've done so well...shame they are perhaps going to have destroyed that respect. I believe the allegations...don't you think it is rather sad though...remove the livestrong sham and PR spin..purely looking at the cycling/athletic aspect of them

BikingBernie

Dave_1 wrote:

why people argue LAs whole career was down to epoh when he was just so so up to 1996 and fantastic afterward...I admit I don't know..the epoh must have been twice as good

Fact is that prior to teaming up with Ferrari Armstrong was a good one-day rider but a total also-ran in the Tour, losing the best part of half an hour on the big mountain stages, being a mediocre time triallist and only managing to finish the Tour on his third attempt, at even then he was one and a half hours down on the winner.

Why the difference? For one 'dabbling' with Epo is hardly going to give the results that a properly medically-managed Epo / blood doping 'program' will. True enough, some 'dabblers' have also pushed the doping envelope, but without proper medical controls have frequently ended up dead, rather than quick. These risks naturally encourage caution, which in turn results in smaller benefits. No wonder riders such as Armstrong were prepared to give 10% of their salary to the likes of Ferrari.

dave_1

BikingBernie wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

why people argue LAs whole career was down to epoh when he was just so so up to 1996 and fantastic afterward...I admit I don't know..the epoh must have been twice as good

Fact is that prior to teaming up with Ferrari Armstrong was a good one-day rider but a total also-ran in the Tour, losing the best part of half an hour on the big mountain stages, being a mediocre time triallist and only managing to finish the Tour on his third attempt, at even then he was one and a half hours down on the winner.

Why the difference? For one 'dabbling' with Epo is hardly going to give the results that a properly medically-managed Epo / blood doping 'program' will. True enough, some 'dabblers' have also pushed the doping envelope, but without proper medical controls have frequently ended up dead, rather than quick. These risks naturally encourage caution, which in turn results in smaller benefits. No wonder riders such as Armstrong were prepared to give 10% of their salary to the likes of Ferrari.

LA pulled out of the 1993 TDF to avoid burnout, in 1994 Yates criticised his dropping out.mid way through the race. you didn't follow it carefully or you'd know that. he was 21 or 22. Agree with you, he was prob EPOd to the gills (allegation) but don't lie BB. How was the epoh so average and then so good..the science was simple..no controls and no dr needed. It was easy to get the most of yourself and risk death

BikingBernie

Dave_1 wrote:

the science was simple..no controls and no dr needed. It was easy to get the most of yourself and risk death

Probably Armstrong didn't want to risk actually killing himself, which is why he was prepared to pay Ferrari, so ensuring that he got maximum benefits whilst running minimal risks.

dave_1

BikingBernie wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

the science was simple..no controls and no dr needed. It was easy to get the most of yourself and risk death

Probably Armstrong didn't want to risk actually killing himself, which is why he was prepared to pay Ferrari, so ensuring that he got maximum benefits whilst running minimal risks.

Ferrari was probably hard science and measuring training results as much as blood work. The pulling off the motorway to a big caravantte on the way to the 1999 Milan San Remo is surely the bad bit you alude to...but I bet you Ferrari was a genuis in sports science too and that's why he employed him-for both. Still leaves open for debate the possibility Armstrong was a really really talented athlete aside. Anyways, you win...he was doped probably (allegation)..shame that the possibility he was also very very good at cycling is destroyed by the allegations

mididoctors

Dave_1 wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

the science was simple..no controls and no dr needed. It was easy to get the most of yourself and risk death

Probably Armstrong didn't want to risk actually killing himself, which is why he was prepared to pay Ferrari, so ensuring that he got maximum benefits whilst running minimal risks.

Ferrari was probably hard science and measuring training results as much as blood work. The pulling off the motorway to a big caravantte on the way to the 1999 Milan San Remo is surely the bad bit you alude to...but I bet you Ferrari was a genuis in sports science too and that's why he employed him-for both. Still leaves open for debate the possibility Armstrong was a really really talented athlete aside. Anyways, you win...he was doped probably (allegation)..shame that the possibility he was also very very good at cycling is destroyed by the allegations

I suspect one of the things that really p1sses everyone off about the 90's and noughties is we are never really going to know...

all this gossip and pseudo expertise yak bout good responders etc etc etc...

they have to stop all this crap or make the case why they shouldn't and have a transparent playing field...

we currently don't have one or the other.. its really annoying and lets face it divisive.

He has to go.... awkward disturbing damaging and all that bad stuff...but still... he has to go

Monty Dog

Dave_1 wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

the science was simple..no controls and no dr needed. It was easy to get the most of yourself and risk death

Probably Armstrong didn't want to risk actually killing himself, which is why he was prepared to pay Ferrari, so ensuring that he got maximum benefits whilst running minimal risks.

Ferrari was probably hard science and measuring training results as much as blood work. The pulling off the motorway to a big caravantte on the way to the 1999 Milan San Remo is surely the bad bit you alude to...but I bet you Ferrari was a genuis in sports science too and that's why he employed him-for both. Still leaves open for debate the possibility Armstrong was a really really talented athlete aside. Anyways, you win...he was doped probably (allegation)..shame that the possibility he was also very very good at cycling is destroyed by the allegations

Is that when when challenged by the likes of Lemond, LA can't come up with his VO2 figures, for example and most of the physiological evidence for the remarkable increases in his performance have been soundly de-bunked e.g. pedalling faster, weight loss etc

dave_1

Monty Dog wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

the science was simple..no controls and no dr needed. It was easy to get the most of yourself and risk death

Probably Armstrong didn't want to risk actually killing himself, which is why he was prepared to pay Ferrari, so ensuring that he got maximum benefits whilst running minimal risks.

Ferrari was probably hard science and measuring training results as much as blood work. The pulling off the motorway to a big caravantte on the way to the 1999 Milan San Remo is surely the bad bit you alude to...but I bet you Ferrari was a genuis in sports science too and that's why he employed him-for both. Still leaves open for debate the possibility Armstrong was a really really talented athlete aside. Anyways, you win...he was doped probably (allegation)..shame that the possibility he was also very very good at cycling is destroyed by the allegations

Is that when when challenged by the likes of Lemond, LA can't come up with his VO2 figures, for example and most of the physiological evidence for the remarkable increases in his performance have been soundly de-bunked e.g. pedalling faster, weight loss etc

he was epohd before 96 according to you and yet he was a totally different athlete after 1998. You say the epoh was twice as strong obviously...you know much more than me..another shonky theory following up BBs above... make up your mind and also tell us why you even bother follow cycling while your at it!! They were all juiced, spanish heros, Belgian heros...why pick on one?

micron

It's quite easy to follow the sport if you think they're all doped - you find your own accommodation with that knowledge: 'they dope to survive', 'they dope to entertain me', 'they dope to stay in the game'. But few of us are happy to admit 'they dope to cheat'.

What Armstrong did was to make that inescapable, to make the cheating so cynical that every 'incredible' performance became not credible. Watching 9 men sprint up every mountain for stage after stage may suit the 'win at all costs' mentality but, speaking personally, the sport isn't about that. Every single rider travels the same distance but not every single rider has a shot at glory - the stage win or the overall. Some are there purely to support, to carry water bottles, to do what they can. For me the race is as much about them as the GC riders. And doping purely to win raises the bar for every single one of those riders and makes the choice to do so more and more inescapable.

BikingBernie

Perhaps, just perhaps, America is slowly waking up to the reality of 'The Armstrong Myth'.

There is an old truth that politicians and athletes tend to learn too late: "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up." Few seasoned sports fans will be surprised in the coming months and years when we see all too clearly that the corporate fairy tale of American cycling - buoyed by the support of millions of self-deluded fans who bought into the myth - appears to have been built on lies.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan- ... 91660.html

DaveyL

micron wrote:

It's quite easy to follow the sport if you think they're all doped - you find your own accommodation with that knowledge: 'they dope to survive', 'they dope to entertain me', 'they dope to stay in the game'. But few of us are happy to admit 'they dope to cheat'.

What Armstrong did was to make that inescapable, to make the cheating so cynical that every 'incredible' performance became not credible. Watching 9 men sprint up every mountain for stage after stage may suit the 'win at all costs' mentality but, speaking personally, the sport isn't about that. Every single rider travels the same distance but not every single rider has a shot at glory - the stage win or the overall. Some are there purely to support, to carry water bottles, to do what they can. For me the race is as much about them as the GC riders. And doping purely to win raises the bar for every single one of those riders and makes the choice to do so more and more inescapable.

Absolute rubbish. It was made inescapable a long time before he started winning the Tour. You want to find an individual and a team that "made it inescapable"? Look back a few years to the guy who dominated before Armstrong and blame him.

"9 men sprinting up every mountain?" Give me a break. Never before has there been so much evidence against the guy yet still you feel the need for hyperbole like this.

RichN95.

Armstrong on the run from the Feds! Video footage!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UR7rk7ERgtc&feature=related

BikingBernie

DaveyL wrote:

You want to find an individual and a team that "made it inescapable"? Look back a few years to the guy who dominated before Armstrong and blame him.

You appear to be overlooking the Festina scandal and it's aftermath. The French 'Cyclismag' has done a couple of very interesting analyses of factors such as the power generated by the riders on the final climb to summit finishes (normalised for the riders weight), the number of cyclists in the race exceeding 410 watts at threshold and so on.

Their figures show that 1996 was perhaps the most 'suspect' Tour in history, with 11 riders having a threshold of 410 watts or above. From 1991 to 1994 the threshold power output of the Tour winner rose from around 380 watts to over 440, and remained there until 1998. Then the Festina scandal broke and the shock seemingly resulted in a return to the 'old days' of pre 1991, with no rider having a normalised threshold above 410 watts.

Over the next few years, the era of Armstrong's domination, each year both the threshold output of the winner (Armstrong) and the number of riders putting out over 410 watts rose again. Given that Armstrong was literally 'setting the pace' in these years it could well be argued that he had dragged the Tour well and truly back into the doping arena, when in the aftermath of the Festina scandal there was a chance that the riders could have gone in a different direction.

For an updated version of their original analysis see:

http://www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=5222

DaveyL

BikingBernie wrote:

DaveyL wrote:

You want to find an individual and a team that "made it inescapable"? Look back a few years to the guy who dominated before Armstrong and blame him.

You appear to be overlooking the Festina scandal and it's aftermath. The French 'Cyclismag' has done a couple of very interesting analyses of factors such as the power generated by the riders on the final climb to summit finishes (normalised for the riders weight), the number of cyclists in the race exceeding 410 watts at threshold and so on.

Their figures show that 1996 was perhaps the most 'suspect' Tour in history, with 11 riders having a threshold of 410 watts or above. From 1991 to 1994 the threshold power output of the Tour winner rose from around 380 watts to over 440, and remained there until 1998. Then the Festina scandal broke and the shock seemingly resulted in a return to the 'old days' of pre 1991, with no rider having a normalised threshold above 410 watts.

Over the next few years, the era of Armstrong's domination, each year both the threshold output of the winner (Armstrong) and the number of riders putting out over 410 watts rose again. Given that Armstrong was literally 'setting the pace' in these years it could well be argued that he had dragged the Tour well and truly back into the doping arena, when in the aftermath of the Festina scandal there was a chance that the riders could have gone in a different direction.

For an updated version of their original analysis see:

http://www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=5222

It doesn't sound like Pantani was up for taking a different course post-Festina, nor Zulle, or any of the either GC riders. Pantani was still taking epo during the 98 Tour *after* the Festina bust, riders like Zulle were on epo in 1999, before it was obvious that Amrstrong was going to be "setting the pace" for the next few years.

Of course, the sport *could* have gone gone in a different direction, post-Festina, without Armstrong, but it is highly unlikely. Look at how the sport went direcrly after the Puerto bust, without your bete noire's involvement.

BikingBernie

DaveyL wrote:

Of course, the sport *could* have gone gone in a different direction, post-Festina, without Armstrong, but it is highly unlikely. Look at how the sport went direcrly after the Puerto bust, without your bete noire's involvement.

True enough, but Armstrong was the man 'setting the pace' in his time, and he was also the greatest enforcer of the doping 'omerta'. (Bassons, Simeoni etc).

jimmythecuckoo

micron wrote:

What Armstrong did was to make that inescapable, to make the cheating so cynical that every 'incredible' performance became not credible. Watching 9 men sprint up every mountain for stage after stage may suit the 'win at all costs' mentality but, speaking personally, the sport isn't about that.

It has made me cyncial of every performance, especially those that come out of no-where.

My dam of positivity broke with that huge Phonak guy (sorry his name escapes me) who stayed with the feather-weight climbers in the mountain of the Giro.

I just thought "at least make it believable".

afx237vi

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

It has made me cyncial of every performance, especially those that come out of no-where.

My dam of positivity broke with that huge Phonak guy (sorry his name escapes me) who stayed with the feather-weight climbers in the mountain of the Giro.

I just thought "at least make it believable".

José Enrique Gutiérrez, also known as "The Buffalo".

micron

Just been revisiting Indurain's palmares - considering in the Tour he was working for Delgado, his palmares show classic progression for a stage race winner - Tours de l'Avenir, Murcia, Catlunya, stages in these and Setmana Catalana, Tour de France and Criterium International plus 2 wins at Paris-Nice. Better palmares than many a much hyped TdF contender.

Not saying Indurain was clean but his genuinely freakish physical characteristics plus his proven abilities as a stage racer speak more of a rider who would do well in the GTs than Armstrong's domestic race wins and reasonable placings in one day races. Just saying

So when was doping made inescapable for you, DaveyL? The Roche triple (even though he was in oxygen debt in the TdF)? The exploits of Merckx? The way Pantani could climb? For me it was watching one team tirelessly hit the front of the race day after day after day - you never saw Festina do that, or even Reynolds/Banesto - but I appreciate that it may be different for you and I'd be interested as to what was the tipping point for you - if, indeed, there was one.

DaveyL

micron wrote:

Just been revisiting Indurain's palmares - considering in the Tour he was working for Delgado, his palmares show classic progression for a stage race winner - Tours de l'Avenir, Murcia, Catlunya, stages in these and Setmana Catalana, Tour de France and Criterium International plus 2 wins at Paris-Nice. Better palmares than many a much hyped TdF contender.

Not saying Indurain was clean but his genuinely freakish physical characteristics plus his proven abilities as a stage racer speak more of a rider who would do well in the GTs than Armstrong's domestic race wins and reasonable placings in one day races. Just saying

So when was doping made inescapable for you, DaveyL? The Roche triple (even though he was in oxygen debt in the TdF)? The exploits of Merckx? The way Pantani could climb? For me it was watching one team tirelessly hit the front of the race day after day after day - you never saw Festina do that, or even Reynolds/Banesto - but I appreciate that it may be different for you and I'd be interested as to what was the tipping point for you - if, indeed, there was one.

How about Greg Lemond's opinion?

"I witnessed a dramatic change in the sport in the early 90s. I saw the speeds in the Tour de France immediately come up in 91 and 92, and usually it was the same group of riders, that had the same doctors, who were dominating."

disgruntledgoat

Or Lucho Herrera's succinct "When I saw guys with fat arses climbing like aeroplanes... then I knew what was giong on"

saymush

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Or Lucho Herrera's succinct "When I saw guys with fat arses climbing like aeroplanes... then I knew what was giong on"

brilliant! :shock:

micron

DaveyL, of course you could say 'well Lemond would say that' Still interested in when it became unsupportable for you.

As HWSNBN is often know as the 'fat arsed pigeon chested Texan ****' in our house, Herrera's assessment works for me

pollys_bott

Apologies if slightly off-topic, but I'm curious as to why LA Confidential was not allowed to be published in English but Lance to Landis was? Did the latter have so much more circumstantial evidence of his alleged doping that Armstrong didn't have as strong an argument that he was being defamed / libelled? Just curious... cheers.

iainf72

http://www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=5841

Pierre Ballester on it all.