I don't believe Lance Armstrong and I never will...

1…457910

Comments

  • gabriel959
    gabriel959 Posts: 4,227
    Contador clean?!?!?! LOL just as clean as Valverde, LL Sanchez, etc...

    Signed
    A Spaniard
    x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
    Commuting / Winter rides - Jamis Renegade Expert
    Pootling / Offroad - All-City Macho Man Disc
    Fast rides Cannondale SuperSix Ultegra
  • waddlie
    waddlie Posts: 542
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Look given the seemingly overwhelming evidence and Lance's continued silence it is likely that he did do the things he is accused of. (But that is what I've been saying all along).

    It's not really, though, is it?
    Rules are for fools.
  • bigmat
    bigmat Posts: 5,134
    gabriel959 wrote:
    Contador clean?!?!?! LOL just as clean as Valverde, LL Sanchez, etc...

    Signed
    A Spaniard

    What's your take on Big Mig? I had reluctantly formed the view that he was an EPO trailblazer, but I was interested by some of the stuff in the reasoned judgment about it becoming necessary to use EPO from around 1996 onwards e.g. when Mig cracked and Riis won the tour. At the time my gut feeling was that Mig was being beaten by cheats and that Riis and Berzin and co were all filthy druggies - reinforced when Mig just retired at the end of the season. I think in all likelihood he was actually on EPO himself, but wonder if it was on a much smaller scale than the 96 generation (Once, Festina, Telekom et al) and that he actually was just an incredible freak of nature (with a bit of EPO for good measure)?
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/41991871@N ... otostream/
  • jonginge
    jonginge Posts: 5,945
    BigMat wrote:
    gabriel959 wrote:
    Contador clean?!?!?! LOL just as clean as Valverde, LL Sanchez, etc...

    Signed
    A Spaniard

    What's your take on Big Mig? I had reluctantly formed the view that he was an EPO trailblazer, but I was interested by some of the stuff in the reasoned judgment about it becoming necessary to use EPO from around 1996 onwards e.g. when Mig cracked and Riis won the tour. At the time my gut feeling was that Mig was being beaten by cheats and that Riis and Berzin and co were all filthy druggies - reinforced when Mig just retired at the end of the season. I think in all likelihood he was actually on EPO himself, but wonder if it was on a much smaller scale than the 96 generation (Once, Festina, Telekom et al) and that he actually was just an incredible freak of nature (with a bit of EPO for good measure)?
    Difficult to say. He could have won the tour (or been very close to Lemond) in 1990 if he wasn't working for Delgado. He finished 12 minutes down and lost all that trying to set up Delgado for the Alpe d'Huez: he drilled it along the valley and then sat up. I've always been of the impression 1990 was just before EPO came in.
    FCN 2-4 "Shut up legs", Jens Voigt
    Planet-x Scott
    Rides
  • edhornby
    edhornby Posts: 1,780
    personally I think Indurain was one of the early users of epo (I've heard rumours that Chiappuci and Roche were also early experimenters), the parallel between him and Hincapie is quite telling - big guys who can hammer a big gear on the flat and are suddenly climbing like Charly Gaul....

    I don't think Contador is in the least bit clean either, remember that the Clen story was initially broken by the German press and this forced the UCI to send it to the Spanish
    "I get paid to make other people suffer on my wheel, how good is that"
    --Jens Voight
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,313
    Waddlie wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Look given the seemingly overwhelming evidence and Lance's continued silence it is likely that he did do the things he is accused of. (But that is what I've been saying all along).

    It's not really, though, is it?

    I think it went more like: " I don't believe Lance Armstrong doped and I never will"

    In fact, I think there were multiple threads on the topic.
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • bigmat
    bigmat Posts: 5,134
    edhornby wrote:
    personally I think Indurain was one of the early users of epo (I've heard rumours that Chiappuci and Roche were also early experimenters), the parallel between him and Hincapie is quite telling - big guys who can hammer a big gear on the flat and are suddenly climbing like Charly Gaul....

    I don't think Contador is in the least bit clean either, remember that the Clen story was initially broken by the German press and this forced the UCI to send it to the Spanish

    Mig was never a rouleur though, he was always a good climber - won stages of the Tour in 1989 / 90 (90 was a MTF), won Paris Nice, and as JonGinge says he was the best rider at the 1990 tour and had been a betting man (rather than a 13 year old boy) I would have bet my life on him winning in 1991.

    I have heard rumours that his 1996 crash in form was due to a change of Dr / doping regime, and there are former teammates who have said that there was an organised doping programme at Banesto, but the timing just seems to suggest that he might have got out when things just started to get a bit ridiculous.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/41991871@N ... otostream/
  • bigmat
    bigmat Posts: 5,134
    edhornby wrote:
    the parallel between him and Hincapie is quite telling - big guys who can hammer a big gear on the flat and are suddenly climbing like Charly Gaul....

    Its a bit like that bloke who won the tour this year, what's his name again?!
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/41991871@N ... otostream/
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,336
    BigMat wrote:
    edhornby wrote:
    the parallel between him and Hincapie is quite telling - big guys who can hammer a big gear on the flat and are suddenly climbing like Charly Gaul....

    Its a bit like that bloke who won the tour this year, what's his name again?!

    Not sure you could describe him as a 'big guy'.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,313
    rjsterry wrote:
    BigMat wrote:
    edhornby wrote:
    the parallel between him and Hincapie is quite telling - big guys who can hammer a big gear on the flat and are suddenly climbing like Charly Gaul....

    Its a bit like that bloke who won the tour this year, what's his name again?!

    Not sure you could describe him as a 'big guy'.


    No, he lost weight and started pedalling a higher cadence ;)
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • bigmat
    bigmat Posts: 5,134
    TailWindHome wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    BigMat wrote:
    edhornby wrote:
    the parallel between him and Hincapie is quite telling - big guys who can hammer a big gear on the flat and are suddenly climbing like Charly Gaul....

    Its a bit like that bloke who won the tour this year, what's his name again?!

    Not sure you could describe him as a 'big guy'.


    No, he lost weight and started pedalling a higher cadence ;)

    He's bigger than me! Obviously he's very lean, but that's a given for GC riders. Compared to Pantani, Contador, Sastre, even Swift and Thomas, he's huge. I was really making the point that being a big guy doesn't necessarily mean you can't climb, its all about power to weight - should probably impact on your ability to make repeated attacks though.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/41991871@N ... otostream/
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    JZed wrote:
    2) ....He had greater means than others and the ability to get a greater advantage.
    So Team Sky have an unfair advantage against other teams because they have the biggest budget and can afford the best and most advance training equipment, trainers, substances etc? Stuff that isn't even accessible to other teams - I'm told.

    Being able to proivde the most doesn't mean it is automatically unfair if everyone has the same freedom to access the same things.

    Furthermore, not everyone responds exactly the same to training regime. You could have two guys Wiggins and another same height, build, etc. Wiggins body could respond better to whatever training regime compared to the other guy. Same with drugs.

    If the electrolytes in my recovery drink is better than yours and I can afford more of it (and yes it really does enable me to ride harder for longer - one more sprint between the lights) does it mean than I have an unfair advantage?

    (I've gone off the point about Lance, I'm now just debating the principle behind the above argument of "Its not fair, his jungle juice is better than mine". It's like saying Maclaren are cheating because they have a bigger budget and better everything compared to Force India.)

    Back on the level playing field. They were all on drugs. The issue isn't that the playing field wasn't fair it is that they were on banned substances. But if EPO wasn't banned then whose body reacts better to it wouldn't be a valid arguement, that's just luck of the biological draw. How much or the quality wouldn't be valid either (unless there was a limit to the amount of EPO that could be used). But given that it was banned and they all used it anyway, I would argue that the playing field was level and the chips fell where they fell. Lance was the greatest of the EPO generation.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • il_principe
    il_principe Posts: 9,155
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    JZed wrote:
    2) ....He had greater means than others and the ability to get a greater advantage.
    So Team Sky have an unfair advantage against other teams because they have the biggest budget and can afford the best and most advance training equipment, trainers, substances etc? Stuff that isn't even accessible to other teams - I'm told.

    SKY don't have the biggest budget. Apparently they come in around 4th/5th.
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    Il Principe wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    JZed wrote:
    2) ....He had greater means than others and the ability to get a greater advantage.
    So Team Sky have an unfair advantage against other teams because they have the biggest budget and can afford the best and most advance training equipment, trainers, substances etc? Stuff that isn't even accessible to other teams - I'm told.

    SKY don't have the biggest budget. Apparently they come in around 4th/5th.
    Who has?
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • jonginge
    jonginge Posts: 5,945
    edited October 2012
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Back on the level playing field. They were all on drugs. The issue isn't that the playing field wasn't fair it is that they were on banned substances. But if EPO wasn't banned then whose body reacts better to it wouldn't be a valid arguement, that's just luck of the biological draw. How much or the quality wouldn't be valid either (unless there was a limit to the amount of EPO that could be used). But given that it was banned and they all used it anyway, I would argue that the playing field was level and the chips fell where they fell. Lance was the greatest of the EPO generation.
    There was/is a limit. Post-Festina the UCI bought in a 50% haemacrit rule. (Riis was referred to as Mr 60% when he won the tour.) That's the only thing they could do as there was no test for synthetic EPO at the time. An athlete's natural haemacrit level is as variable as their max and resting heart rate. People with a normal level of low 40's could be boosted a fair way. Others (like Rob Hayles) with values nearer the 50% would not be able to benefit from blood-boosting to the same degree. IIRC the rumour was that Mancebo received placebo EPO shots because he would have gone above the limit otherwise. The power of the mind, eh?

    ETA: Before the 50% limit quite a few cyclists died in their sleep as their blood was too thick to pump
    ETA2: Mancebo placebo, last paragraph here: http://www.newcyclingpathway.com/news/b ... os-arribas
    FCN 2-4 "Shut up legs", Jens Voigt
    Planet-x Scott
    Rides
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,336
    BigMat wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    BigMat wrote:
    edhornby wrote:
    the parallel between him and Hincapie is quite telling - big guys who can hammer a big gear on the flat and are suddenly climbing like Charly Gaul....

    Its a bit like that bloke who won the tour this year, what's his name again?!

    Not sure you could describe him as a 'big guy'.


    No, he lost weight and started pedalling a higher cadence ;)

    He's bigger than me! Obviously he's very lean, but that's a given for GC riders. Compared to Pantani, Contador, Sastre, even Swift and Thomas, he's huge. I was really making the point that being a big guy doesn't necessarily mean you can't climb, its all about power to weight - should probably impact on your ability to make repeated attacks though.

    He's certainly tall, but a bit more than lean. I'm pretty scrawny (coincidentally a close match for Bertie's height and weight) and he's 6"/15cm taller than me, but only 10lbs/4kg heavier.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    In any other sport Wiggins would look wrong. I'm not sure what they use or how they keep his weight and muscle mass down. When he retires it will be interesting to see what his body does and how he looks naturally.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,313
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Back on the level playing field. They were all on drugs. The issue isn't that the playing field wasn't fair it is that they were on banned substances. But if EPO wasn't banned then whose body reacts better to it wouldn't be a valid arguement, that's just luck of the biological draw. How much or the quality wouldn't be valid either (unless there was a limit to the amount of EPO that could be used). But given that it was banned and they all used it anyway, I would argue that the playing field was level and the chips fell where they fell. Lance was the greatest of the EPO generation.


    You're missing the point. But to be fair many do.

    IT WAS ONLY A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD* FOR THOSE WHO CHOSE TO CHEAT.



    *it wasn't but again you ain't listening.
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,313
    Read. Understand.
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,313
    Sky Finances
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • jzed
    jzed Posts: 2,926
    TailWindHome wrote:
    Read. Understand.

    Isn't that what I told him.
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    TWH, two very good articles. Thank you.

    I disagree with the notion that: 'The winner of a race, where everyone has doped, is the one that dopes the most'. If notsoblue, EKE28BPM, dhope and I were all to dope, they would need to dope more to reach my level but I would need less dope to guarantee I surpassed that level.

    But the other points - make it clear why it is not a level playing field.

    I also like the logical explanation of how Sky use their budget and why it is most effective when converting that into results.

    Thanks.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,313
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    TWH, two very good articles. Thank you.


    Inner ring is a blog worth following. Well written, concise and accessible.

    His analysis of race routes (especially GT stages) and post-race 'The Moment the Race Was Won" are especially good
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Il Principe wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    JZed wrote:
    2) ....He had greater means than others and the ability to get a greater advantage.
    So Team Sky have an unfair advantage against other teams because they have the biggest budget and can afford the best and most advance training equipment, trainers, substances etc? Stuff that isn't even accessible to other teams - I'm told.

    SKY don't have the biggest budget. Apparently they come in around 4th/5th.

    Depends how you do their accounting. They spent an awful lot when the first moved into the sport ( on all their big busses, I phones for everyone, etc) which isn't accounted for in their budget.
    _
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Il Principe wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    JZed wrote:
    2) ....He had greater means than others and the ability to get a greater advantage.
    So Team Sky have an unfair advantage against other teams because they have the biggest budget and can afford the best and most advance training equipment, trainers, substances etc? Stuff that isn't even accessible to other teams - I'm told.

    SKY don't have the biggest budget. Apparently they come in around 4th/5th.
    Who has?

    Sky are defintitely up there with the big spenders.

    Rabobank are there too. Pretty sure Katusha are there too.
    _
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,336
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Il Principe wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    JZed wrote:
    2) ....He had greater means than others and the ability to get a greater advantage.
    So Team Sky have an unfair advantage against other teams because they have the biggest budget and can afford the best and most advance training equipment, trainers, substances etc? Stuff that isn't even accessible to other teams - I'm told.

    SKY don't have the biggest budget. Apparently they come in around 4th/5th.
    Who has?

    Sky are defintitely up there with the big spenders.

    Rabobank are there too. Pretty sure Katusha are there too.

    And that blog mentions BMC, but states that it's difficult to give a definitive top 5.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Of course.

    Always forget BMC.

    Quite a few world champs on their team...!
    _
  • EKE_38BPM
    EKE_38BPM Posts: 5,821
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    TWH, two very good articles. Thank you.

    I disagree with the notion that: 'The winner of a race, where everyone has doped, is the one that dopes the most'. If notsoblue, EKE38BPM, dhope and I were all to dope, they would need to dope more to reach my level but I would need less dope to guarantee I surpassed that level.

    But the other points - make it clear why it is not a level playing field.

    I also like the logical explanation of how Sky use their budget and why it is most effective when converting that into results.

    Thanks.
    FTFY

    Why do you assume that you are so great? How do you know that any of us that you have mentioned couldn't beat you on any terrain or distance of your choosing whilst we are riding an original Chopper and you are on some carbon dream machine?
    We've never met. You've never ridden with me. You don't know how good I am. Learn some humility.
    FCN 3: Raleigh Record Ace fixie-to be resurrected sometime in the future
    FCN 4: Planet X Schmaffenschmack 2- workhorse
    FCN 9: B Twin Vitamin - winter commuter/loan bike for trainees

    I'm hungry. I'm always hungry!
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,336
    EKE_38BPM wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    TWH, two very good articles. Thank you.

    I disagree with the notion that: 'The winner of a race, where everyone has doped, is the one that dopes the most'. If notsoblue, EKE38BPM, dhope and I were all to dope, they would need to dope more to reach my level but I would need less dope to guarantee I surpassed that level.

    But the other points - make it clear why it is not a level playing field.

    I also like the logical explanation of how Sky use their budget and why it is most effective when converting that into results.

    Thanks.
    FTFY

    Why do you assume that you are so great? How do you know that any of us that you have mentioned couldn't beat you on any terrain or distance of your choosing whilst we are riding an original Chopper and you are on some carbon dream machine?
    We've never met. You've never ridden with me. You don't know how good I am. Learn some humility.

    Oh EKE, I can't believe you're biting on this. He didn't even post that pic of a gauntlet.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    :lol:

    The PM where EKE tries to chat up MsManc and she replies "You're just a DDD-lite" still hurts.

    That's why he bites.

    :lol:
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game

Categories