Lance Armstrong gets life ban,loses 7 TDF,confesses he doped
Comments
-
"Form" or "Abnormal Form" because with Bjarne Riis And Armstrong it was Abnormal form that had never been shown before.Crankbrother wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:Well given that pre cancer, Armstrong's Tour record was rode four, abandoned three, finished 36th, it's a fairly safe bet to assume he was a pretty exceptional responder.
So we are to assume anyone with a similar TdF track record who suddenly hits form and runs previously consistent GT contenders ragged can only have done so with PEDs? Or are you saying that is not always the case?Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 19720 -
deejay wrote:
"Form" or "Abnormal Form" because with Bjarne Riis And Armstrong it was Abnormal form that had never been shown before.Crankbrother wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:Well given that pre cancer, Armstrong's Tour record was rode four, abandoned three, finished 36th, it's a fairly safe bet to assume he was a pretty exceptional responder.
So we are to assume anyone with a similar TdF track record who suddenly hits form and runs previously consistent GT contenders ragged can only have done so with PEDs? Or are you saying that is not always the case?
Riis had shown some level of consistency (and tenacity) in previous TdF's leading up to his win ... There is certainly at least one rider whose 'ease' of winning was more akin to a few of LA's wins ...0 -
No can't accept that.RichN95 wrote:
That's a fairly large assumption. The first two abandons were pre-planned (he was only 21/22) and for the third he had cancer. As for the 36th in 1995, it should be noted that he was racing against riders on full blown doping programs, which he obviously didn't have yet, and he was primarily interested in stages rather than GC.Blazing Saddles wrote:Well given that pre cancer, Armstrong's Tour record was rode four, abandoned three, finished 36th, it's a fairly safe bet to assume he was a pretty exceptional responder.
We really don't know what his (or anyone else's) natural standard was.
Cancer in 1995 that is.
He was in his best form so far in 1995 and managed to win a transitional TDF stage which was spured on by the death of team mate Fabio Casertalli and then won the San Sebastian World Cup race.
He started 1996 in good form and won the Fleche Wallonne but in the rain of the first week TDF he packed and the team said he had a "Loss of Form" then in October he was diagnosed having cancer.
The Conconi/Ferrari Gewiss team were the only team on the full blown Super EPO concoction as they won the team time trial with a guy called Bjarne Riis in the team. Who ? oh some guy from Denmark :!:
The Once team did well in that race and are known to be on some form of Drugs but to my knowledge it is unidentified. ?Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 19720 -
What we really need is a graph ...
TdF winners placings for all Tours competed (including DNFs) ...
The 'spikes/planes' might be interesting ...0 -
RichN95 wrote:
That's a fairly large assumption. The first two abandons were pre-planned (he was only 21/22) and for the third he had cancer. As for the 36th in 1995, it should be noted that he was racing against riders on full blown doping programs, which he obviously didn't have yet, and he was primarily interested in stages rather than GC.Blazing Saddles wrote:Well given that pre cancer, Armstrong's Tour record was rode four, abandoned three, finished 36th, it's a fairly safe bet to assume he was a pretty exceptional responder.
We really don't know what his (or anyone else's) natural standard was.
Which for me, is the biggest negative of the whole PEDs debate.
The other side of the assumption coin being that having had stage 4 cancer
had no impact on his natural standard.
Hard to believe it had no negative effect whatsoever.
Yet many bought into the idea that somehow, it made him stronger."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
deejay, first you are saying Armstrong his a ordinary rider " Nothing special" yet you post some good pre tour form and he also was world champion don't forget. I don't see that as being ordinary. Then you talk about Riis on some super EPO drug, then you say Once rode on a unidentified drug, so how do you know Postal had the best drugs? It's just presumption and a guess at best and you would not know the effects on each individual.
I don't think cancer gave Lance any physical advantage. I would imagine it did give him a mental toughness and belief that perhaps was not there before0 -
Blazing Saddles wrote:RichN95 wrote:
That's a fairly large assumption. The first two abandons were pre-planned (he was only 21/22) and for the third he had cancer. As for the 36th in 1995, it should be noted that he was racing against riders on full blown doping programs, which he obviously didn't have yet, and he was primarily interested in stages rather than GC.Blazing Saddles wrote:Well given that pre cancer, Armstrong's Tour record was rode four, abandoned three, finished 36th, it's a fairly safe bet to assume he was a pretty exceptional responder.
We really don't know what his (or anyone else's) natural standard was.
Which for me, is the biggest negative of the whole PEDs debate.
The other side of the assumption coin being that having had stage 4 cancer
had no impact on his natural standard.
Hard to believe it had no negative effect whatsoever.
Yet many bought into the idea that somehow, it made him stronger.
Recovery from cancer and chemo, in particular, can effect people in different ways. My sister came out of it stronger and has set a lot of running PBs since. She is a veteran runner so I cant use gaining maturity as an excuse for this improvement. On the other hand a good friend of mine, also an endurance runner, has been cured for 8 years now and still loves competing but has never got near his pre cancer times and admits he feels much weaker than his former self.
It has been reported that Armstrong could still hit his power figures after chemo, but he was considerably lighter and leaner. Power to weight. Oh.....and a shed load of PEDs.0 -
Crankbrother wrote:deejay wrote:
"Form" or "Abnormal Form" because with Bjarne Riis And Armstrong it was Abnormal form that had never been shown before.Crankbrother wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:Well given that pre cancer, Armstrong's Tour record was rode four, abandoned three, finished 36th, it's a fairly safe bet to assume he was a pretty exceptional responder.
So we are to assume anyone with a similar TdF track record who suddenly hits form and runs previously consistent GT contenders ragged can only have done so with PEDs? Or are you saying that is not always the case?
Riis had shown some level of consistency (and tenacity) in previous TdF's leading up to his win ... There is certainly at least one rider whose 'ease' of winning was more akin to a few of LA's wins ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMqAW6bgv2o nothing suspicious about that performance,,,whaaaatt0 -
mike6 wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:RichN95 wrote:
That's a fairly large assumption. The first two abandons were pre-planned (he was only 21/22) and for the third he had cancer. As for the 36th in 1995, it should be noted that he was racing against riders on full blown doping programs, which he obviously didn't have yet, and he was primarily interested in stages rather than GC.Blazing Saddles wrote:Well given that pre cancer, Armstrong's Tour record was rode four, abandoned three, finished 36th, it's a fairly safe bet to assume he was a pretty exceptional responder.
We really don't know what his (or anyone else's) natural standard was.
Which for me, is the biggest negative of the whole PEDs debate.
The other side of the assumption coin being that having had stage 4 cancer
had no impact on his natural standard.
Hard to believe it had no negative effect whatsoever.
Yet many bought into the idea that somehow, it made him stronger.
Recovery from cancer and chemo, in particular, can effect people in different ways. My sister came out of it stronger and has set a lot of running PBs since. She is a veteran runner so I cant use gaining maturity as an excuse for this improvement. On the other hand a good friend of mine, also an endurance runner, has been cured for 8 years now and still loves competing but has never got near his pre cancer times and admits he feels much weaker than his former self.
It has been reported that Armstrong could still hit his power figures after chemo, but he was considerably lighter and leaner. Power to weight. Oh.....and a shed load of PEDs.
It has been reported that he was considerably lighter. By Armstrong himself.
If you look at his actual weight, he wasn't any lighter at all from what I have read. The reports of a 15Ib weight loss are well wide of the mark, it was actually a pound or two at most.0 -
You poor boy that you still miss the point that we have to keep putting Fan Bois down before the children start to believe the Armstrong rubbish.rayjay wrote:There's not really much cycling left for you to watch if that's you standard.
There was and is so much more to watch in a season of Pro Cycle Racing that enabled me to avoid the boring USP team giving an armchair ride to their leader in July once a year.
Perhaps his Superior PED's and blood would only allow him to be such a children's Harlequin for 7/8 weeks at a time but that was easily avoided with just a glance at the proceedings because the French do know how to put on a Carnival.Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 19720 -
Long before you were born sonny,rayjay wrote:Tell me deejay who his an exceptional rider?
That you probably have never heard of them riding on gravel roads but one of course would be Rik Van Looy and so many others that I went to see.Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 19720 -
deejay wrote:
You poor boy that you still miss the point that we have to keep putting Fan Bois down before the children start to believe the Armstrong rubbish.rayjay wrote:There's not really much cycling left for you to watch if that's you standard.
There was and is so much more to watch in a season of Pro Cycle Racing that enabled me to avoid the boring USP team giving an armchair ride to their leader in July once a year.
Perhaps his Superior PED's and blood would only allow him to be such a children's Harlequin for 7/8 weeks at a time but that was easily avoided with just a glance at the proceedings because the French do know how to put on a Carnival.
You still haven't answered how you know that Armstrong was taking the best PEDs, especially since you said you don't know what PEDs Once took. Can you answer that?0 -
Why does anyone who acknowledges Armstrong doped but has an opinion other than 'burn him at the stake' have to be a 'fanboy/i' ?
There was probably around 10 epic stages out of his 7 wins ... With drama and excitement that has been missing from the front end of the Tour since Schleck Jnr shipped a chain ... I accept those for what they were, good TV ... It's not worth my time caring about the doping etc. because, quite frankly, none of those he was racing against at the time cared ...
We'll never know who could have won what without doping, mainly as there is no yardstick from that period to measure performances against ... except, for better or worse, the times across the line ...0 -
rayjay wrote:deejay wrote:
You poor boy that you still miss the point that we have to keep putting Fan Bois down before the children start to believe the Armstrong rubbish.rayjay wrote:There's not really much cycling left for you to watch if that's you standard.
There was and is so much more to watch in a season of Pro Cycle Racing that enabled me to avoid the boring USP team giving an armchair ride to their leader in July once a year.
Perhaps his Superior PED's and blood would only allow him to be such a children's Harlequin for 7/8 weeks at a time but that was easily avoided with just a glance at the proceedings because the French do know how to put on a Carnival.
You still haven't answered how you know that Armstrong was taking the best PEDs, especially since you said you don't know what PEDs Once took. Can you answer that?
We do know that he had Ferarri working his corner who was considered the best that money could buy."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
I'm happy to be called a fanboy/i. It's usually used in anger although I'm sure for some there is a homophobic connotation to it used as an insult. But only homophobic idiots would use it in that context.
I'm amazed no one has mentioned all the dosh Landis could make if he wins his civil case. I loved watching Landis ride and THAT ride was awesome doped or not. It does not feel right that he may get possibly millions. All these ex doped riders are making some serious money on the back of Armstrong. All you fans buying their books and lapping up every word even though when they were doping you were calling them cheating liars all sorts of horrid names, but now they are ok because they helped get a fellow doper busted.0 -
Fair point Blazing Saddles. In truth I doubt if we will ever know and also you have to take into account the effects PED's have on an individual.0
-
It really doesn't. It's a word that has its origins in the world of sci-fi and comic books. I think you may be the first person to link it to homosexuality.rayjay wrote:I'm happy to be called a fanboy/i. It's usually used in anger although I'm sure for some there is a homophobic connotation to it used as an insult. But only homophobic idiots would use it in that context.
As an insult it is usually meant to describe someone who is too emotionally involved in something to have an objective view and is usually used by those who are too emotionally involved in something to have an objective view.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Perhaps because binary thinking is easier for those of us who don't have the gift of your special intellect.Crankbrother wrote:Why does anyone who acknowledges Armstrong doped but has an opinion other than 'burn him at the stake' have to be a 'fanboy/i' ?Crankbrother wrote:There was probably around 10 epic stages out of his 7 wins ... With drama and excitement that has been missing from the front end of the Tour since Schleck Jnr shipped a chain ...
Barely any drama or excitement since Armstrong? You mean I've been absorbed in a rubbish sport for the last few years?
Chris Froome on a bike, why didn't you tell me!?!0 -
RichN95 wrote:As an insult it is usually meant to describe someone who is too emotionally involved in something to have an objective view and is usually used by those who are too emotionally involved in something to have an objective view.
...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
RichN95 wrote:
It really doesn't. It's a word that has its origins in the world of sci-fi and comic books. I think you may be the first person to link it to homosexuality.rayjay wrote:I'm happy to be called a fanboy/i. It's usually used in anger although I'm sure for some there is a homophobic connotation to it used as an insult. But only homophobic idiots would use it in that context.
As an insult it is usually meant to describe someone who is too emotionally involved in something to have an objective view and is usually used by those who are too emotionally involved in something to have an objective view.
I don't know whether that's true, but I'd bet Freud would have certainly had some theory which he would use to explain why Rayjay said he was "sure some there is a homophobic connotation to it".
Anyway, Lance really was the best ever wasn't he? So much style. So many panaches. It's no wonder we all rank him right up there amongst the other 'sporting greats' such as Robin Cousins, Tony Jacklin and Ray Clemence.0 -
mfin wrote:I don't know whether that's true, but I'd bet Freud would have certainly had some theory which he would use to explain why Rayjay said he was "sure some there is a homophobic connotation to it".
Isn't it just the innocent confusion of "fanboy/iI" and "rentboy/i"?
We've all done it.0 -
OCDuPalais wrote:mfin wrote:I don't know whether that's true, but I'd bet Freud would have certainly had some theory which he would use to explain why Rayjay said he was "sure some there is a homophobic connotation to it".
Isn't it just the innocent confusion of "fanboy/iI" and "rentboy/i"?
We've all done it.
Naaa, it can't be that, they're totally different as it's quite rational how someone would become a rentboy. Oh, and one is 'screwing people for money' and the other is 'loving someone else who was screwing people for money' in this instance.0 -
mfin wrote:OCDuPalais wrote:mfin wrote:I don't know whether that's true, but I'd bet Freud would have certainly had some theory which he would use to explain why Rayjay said he was "sure some there is a homophobic connotation to it".
Isn't it just the innocent confusion of "fanboy/iI" and "rentboy/i"?
We've all done it.
Naaa, it can't be that, they're totally different as it's quite rational how someone would become a rentboy. Oh, and one is 'screwing people for money' and the other is 'loving someone else who was screwing people for money' in this instance. You seem to know a lot about rent boy's 0 -
mfin wrote:RichN95 wrote:
It really doesn't. It's a word that has its origins in the world of sci-fi and comic books. I think you may be the first person to link it to homosexuality.rayjay wrote:I'm happy to be called a fanboy/i. It's usually used in anger although I'm sure for some there is a homophobic connotation to it used as an insult. But only homophobic idiots would use it in that context.
As an insult it is usually meant to describe someone who is too emotionally involved in something to have an objective view and is usually used by those who are too emotionally involved in something to have an objective view.
I don't know whether that's true, but I'd bet Freud would have certainly had some theory which he would use to explain why Rayjay said he was "sure some there is a homophobic connotation to it".
Anyway, Lance really was the best ever wasn't he? So much style. So many panaches. It's no wonder we all rank him right up there amongst the other 'sporting greats' such as Robin Cousins, Tony Jacklin and Ray Clemence.
"Anyway, Lance really was the best ever wasn't he?" Tour rider .Yes
"So much style." At times yes. Like the stage at Gap.
" So many panaches" How do you cook them? are they like pancakes? 0 -
rayjay wrote:mfin wrote:OCDuPalais wrote:mfin wrote:I don't know whether that's true, but I'd bet Freud would have certainly had some theory which he would use to explain why Rayjay said he was "sure some there is a homophobic connotation to it".
Isn't it just the innocent confusion of "fanboy/iI" and "rentboy/i"?
We've all done it.
Naaa, it can't be that, they're totally different as it's quite rational how someone would become a rentboy. Oh, and one is 'screwing people for money' and the other is 'loving someone else who was screwing people for money' in this instance. You seem to know a lot about rent boy's
Yep, but you don't seem to know a lot about cycling
0 -
rayjay wrote:mfin wrote:RichN95 wrote:
It really doesn't. It's a word that has its origins in the world of sci-fi and comic books. I think you may be the first person to link it to homosexuality.rayjay wrote:I'm happy to be called a fanboy/i. It's usually used in anger although I'm sure for some there is a homophobic connotation to it used as an insult. But only homophobic idiots would use it in that context.
As an insult it is usually meant to describe someone who is too emotionally involved in something to have an objective view and is usually used by those who are too emotionally involved in something to have an objective view.
I don't know whether that's true, but I'd bet Freud would have certainly had some theory which he would use to explain why Rayjay said he was "sure some there is a homophobic connotation to it".
Anyway, Lance really was the best ever wasn't he? So much style. So many panaches. It's no wonder we all rank him right up there amongst the other 'sporting greats' such as Robin Cousins, Tony Jacklin and Ray Clemence.
"Anyway, Lance really was the best ever wasn't he?" Tour rider .Yes
"So much style." At times yes. Like the stage at Gap.
" So many panaches" How do you cook them? are they like pancakes?
Yep, the wording was the joke, well done for getting it.0 -
Yep, the wording was the joke, well done for getting it.
T h a n k s 0 -
OCDuPalais wrote:
Perhaps because binary thinking is easier for those of us who don't have the gift of your special intellect.Crankbrother wrote:Why does anyone who acknowledges Armstrong doped but has an opinion other than 'burn him at the stake' have to be a 'fanboy/i' ?Crankbrother wrote:There was probably around 10 epic stages out of his 7 wins ... With drama and excitement that has been missing from the front end of the Tour since Schleck Jnr shipped a chain ...
Barely any drama or excitement since Armstrong? You mean I've been absorbed in a rubbish sport for the last few years?
Chris Froome on a bike, why didn't you tell me!?!
If you like to think le Tour is the be all and end all of cycling then yeah, you've been wasting your time the last few years ...
And if you feel the need to use the word 'intellect' to back up whatever you're rattling on about, chances are it's not apparent in what you actually said ...0 -
0
