I thought I was invincible, that they wouldn’t catch me.
B. Lafferty
Anton Berlin
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/thomas-dekker-a-dopers-desire-for...
This is just another sad example of Lance Armstrong's selfish
behavior.
Why won't he teach kids like Dekker how to dope effectively and not
get caught? Lance has let down Tyler, then Floyd and frankly, all of
us.
Lance has the opportunity and expertise to give something back to the
sport, by grasping the hands of the cyclists of tomorrow and then
quickly stabbing them in the arm with a microdose of EPO before they
wriggle free.
Once again -- Lance has failed.
B. Lafferty
Anton Berlin
Like all great champions - Lance is an innovater. He was nimble and
evolved with the times. Originally it was CC at the OTC, then EPO
until a test came along, then back to blood boosting and the medical
grade T patches and advice from Dr F.. No mystery here.
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:Sb-dnZGwv_vVGczR...@giganews.com...
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/thomas-dekker-a-dopers-desire-for-redemption
Interesting read. Especially this part-
======
Yet despite the drugs 2008 was a poor year results-wise. Dekker went
from race to race in search of form, unable to find the legs that had
helped him in 2007. But it wasn’t his legs that were the problem. He’d
lost his head. The regimented life of rising early and training every
day had disappeared as he became more reliant on drugs, ego, partying
and being the centre of attention.
“I wasn’t living for my sport anymore and I was trying to make up for it
by doping. Cycling was my life when I was winning races like Tirreno, I
was waking up early, living like a professional should. I was never
going out, just doing the same thing always living for my bike. In 2008
that was all different. I lost my seriousness and my focus.”
======
Dekker & the author are making the claim that doping led to his downfall
as a competitive cyclist. And does so in a very believable fashion. Or
does it? We've always assumed that doping was a panacea, a way to cheat
that had no real downfall aside from the prospect of getting caught.
This is something new or at least an aspect of doping I haven't seen
articulated quite this well before, not well enough for me to pay
attention to it anyway.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Anton Berlin
wrote:> >http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/thomas-dekker-a-dopers-desire-for...
>
> Interesting read. Especially this part-
> ======
> Yet despite the drugs 2008 was a poor year results-wise. Dekker went
> from race to race in search of form, unable to find the legs that had
> helped him in 2007. But it wasn’t his legs that were the problem. He’d
> lost his head. The regimented life of rising early and training every
> day had disappeared as he became more reliant on drugs, ego, partying
> and being the centre of attention.
> “I wasn’t living for my sport anymore and I was trying to make up for it
> by doping. Cycling was my life when I was winning races like Tirreno, I
> was waking up early, living like a professional should. I was never
> going out, just doing the same thing always living for my bike. In 2008
> that was all different. I lost my seriousness and my focus.”
> ======
>
> Dekker & the author are making the claim that doping led to his downfall
> as a competitive cyclist. And does so in a very believable fashion. Or
> does it? We've always assumed that doping was a panacea, a way to cheat
> that had no real downfall aside from the prospect of getting caught.
> This is something new or at least an aspect of doping I haven't seen
> articulated quite this well before, not well enough for me to pay
> attention to it anyway.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Gee Mike - did you read the part where he wasn't training and was out
partying all of the time?
Dekker wasn't like Lance in that he hadn't the discipline to do EPO in
the evening, do a little coke with strippers, go home and give his
wife the STD he just caught and then wake up in time to train.
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:ed4dafec-2ee7-446a...@q35g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Gee Mike - did you read the part where he wasn't training and was out
partying all of the time?
Dekker wasn't like Lance in that he hadn't the discipline to do EPO in
the evening, do a little coke with strippers, go home and give his
wife the STD he just caught and then wake up in time to train.
========
Not much point in trying to argue with me when we agree. That was the point
of what I referenced- that Dekker felt that EPO was a substitute for proper
training. It made him mentally weak.
We can joke and not-joke about Lance all we want, but you've pointed to a
fundamental truth about the guy- he was amazingly disciplined, and would
likely be a winner in an era that was clean or dirty. It's hard to make a
case that, in a 100% clean environment, Lance would have been less-likely to
win. While the scenarios most assume might put 70-90% of the peloton as
"dirty", those 10-30% presumed "clean" weren't likely going to change the GC
that much. Hypothetically speaking, one could say they weren't disciplined
enough to get the job done (which might have required doping, among other
things).
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
B. Lafferty
indication of what hard work and non-cutting edge doping can accomplish.
Mike Jacoubowsky
--
"B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:u8ydnay1QtQTfczR...@giganews.com...
That's a tough idea to support. Too many variables; post-cancer Lance vs
pre-cancer. There's plenty of evidence that the body goes through changes
when subject to that much chemotherapy, plus changes in mental attitude (are
we going to deny a significant difference between one athlete's results and
another based simply on how their brain is wired?).
RicodJour
This is what most people have believed for most of the time.
> Look at his hard working result pre-cancer. That will give you an
> indication of what hard work and non-cutting edge doping can accomplish.
Yep, LANCE really ruined the sport by introducing doping - excuse me,
"cutting edge" doping to the peloton. I hear that when he was younger
he paid for a number of doctors to go to medical school so he could
count on them after he got the training wheels off of his bike. He
also managed to squeeze in several advanced degrees in medicine during
the off season. He successfully cloned himself, so there were really
TWO LANCEs, and they'd each take alternating days off during the Tour.
Everything's gotten more sophisticated, you solipsistic stooge. It's
puerile to expect anything where there's money and competition
involved to not be affected by an advance in technology and science.
So what's your beef - life's not pure enough for you? Wot a maroon.
R
--D-y
> On 7/29/2010 4:07 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
>
>
Just a distant impression, but I believe "work" took on a whole new
meaning for Lance, post cancer.
"Cutting edge" was changing, too <g>.
Pre Cancer? Two TdF stage wins, a Worlds RR championship, a couple of
minor "classics" and a flubbed shot at the Ardennais Weekend (against,
ahem, Pascal Richard cough cough).
Not much compared to seven TdF's in a row but then, if not
concentrating on the TdF, he might have won a bunch of one-day races
during those seven seasons, no?
Trading shots at poor-paying, lottery-type one-day races for a
juggernaut run at the TdF included in "preparation". After, according
to legend, none other than Eddy Merckx put a big ol' bug in his ear
about winning the TdF.
I mean, maybe "dope" is good for the IQ, too. "Better living through
chemistry?"
--D-y
Kurgan Gringioni
: Look at his hard working result pre-cancer. That will give you an
: indication of what hard work and non-cutting edge doping can accomplish.
Dumbass -
As always, you're conclusions are completely tainted by your bias.
1) LANCE most likely doped pre-cancer
2) LANCE was a really good rider, pre-cancer, but he was an explosive
one-day anaerobic machine rather than a Grand Tour rider. He won Worlds. I
remember seeing him take on the entire ONCE team singlehandedly (of course
he lost). Even Miguel Indurain at his peak wasn't able to succeed at that
(stage 9, 1995 TdF).
thanks,
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
Kurgan Gringioni
"Anton Berlin" <truth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ed4dafec-2ee7-446a...@q35g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> Gee Mike - did you read the part where he wasn't training and was out
> partying all of the time?
>
> Dekker wasn't like Lance in that he hadn't the discipline to do EPO in
> the evening, do a little coke with strippers, go home and give his
> wife the STD he just caught and then wake up in time to train.
Dumbass -
That is a failure of the man, not the drugs.
B. Lafferty
Henry? Thanks though for your thoughts.
B. Lafferty
Brilliant, Henry.
Anton Berlin
Kurgan Gringioni
Dumbass -
LANCE most likely (I say most likely because I have no first hand evidence)
before and after cancer. The difference was his body changed from the chemo.
Doping alone doesn't do it. Reasons:
1) dopers are competing against other dopers.
2) climbing ability is still determined by power to weight RATIO. Weight is
equally important as power output.
Kurgan Gringioni
B. Lafferty
doping regimen down pat. No doubt his post-cancer weight loss help
considerably. Carry on, Henry.
Kurgan Gringioni
: > Dumbass -
: >
: > LANCE most likely (I say most likely because I have no first hand
evidence)
: > before and after cancer. The difference was his body changed from the
chemo.
: > Doping alone doesn't do it. Reasons:
: >
: > 1) dopers are competing against other dopers.
: >
: > 2) climbing ability is still determined by power to weight RATIO. Weight
is
: > equally important as power output.
: >
: > thanks,
: >
: > Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
: >
: That wasn't the question. I doubt that pre-cancer Armstrong had the EPO
: doping regimen down pat. No doubt his post-cancer weight loss help
: considerably.
Dumbass -
He was pretty awesome pre-cancer. So much so that they built US Postal
around a rider coming off chemo, not racing for a year. They didn't decide
to make him a GT rider until he rode the Vuelta and unexpectedly got 4th. It
was the weight.
If he hadn't shed that weight, he wouldn't be competitive as a Grand Tour GC
rider, optimized doping or no. Remember, weight is half the equation. Going
uphill, cutting 10% off bodyweight is the same as gaining 10% in power.
"Optimizing" a doping program isn't going to yield those results. In 1998,
they had the 50% hematocrit limits. Where's the 10% extra power gonna come
from? It's fiction.
B. Lafferty
in the Tour was truly awesome, Henry.
Johan's motivation was to gamble on Armstrong and dope him to the gills.
If it didn't work out, it mean only that Johan would look good for
humanitarian reasons and Lance could go back to Texas.
RicodJour
>
> He was pretty much a one day racer pre-cancer. That 1995 placing at 80th
> in the Tour was truly awesome, Henry.
Hey Barry. Not that the little amount of blood your hard on for LANCE
consumes should affect your brain so much, but something is. You
should do some fact checking so you don't look biased AND stupid. He
finished five places back of Johan. Frankie A finished 82nd - but
what the hell, they all look alike, right?
Seriously, I'll make a call to see if you could get a leading role in
the sequel. You're a natural.
R
B. Lafferty
> On Jul 31, 5:05 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> He was pretty much a one day racer pre-cancer. That 1995 placing at 80th
>> in the Tour was truly awesome, Henry.
>
> Hey Barry. Not that the little amount of blood your hard on for LANCE
> consumes should affect your brain so much, but something is. You
> should do some fact checking so you don't look biased AND stupid. He
> finished five places back of Johan. Frankie A finished 82nd - but
> what the hell, they all look alike, right?
Theywere all pack fodder in that Tour. Your point was?
RicodJour
> in the Tour was truly awesome, Henry.
You know, maybe I have been too hard on you, Barry. I took a look at
the 95 team LANCE was on, and you're right, with a stellar makeup like
that, he should have won the thing walking away. It's not like having
a strong team helps, right? I mean each guy pedals his own bike.
Sheesh.
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/archives/letour/tdfteams.html
That article had this to say about Motorola:
"America's premier cycling team is led by 1993 World Champion Lance
Armstrong. Although Armstrong was often frustrated in 1994, he has
returned with renewed vigor this year. He stifled his opponents in
America's Tour DuPont and is admittedly hungry to confirm his good
form in Europe. Still only 23, Armstrong seems a bit young to contest
the overall classification. He would be satisfied with a spectacular
stage win."
America's premier cycling team - this from the era where those three
words were a joke. And he did win a stage in a spectacular way.
So, to sum it up...you're a Grade A schmuck, Barry, who conveniently
forgets dates, placings, just about everything about cycling, when it
suits your main objective - to get LANCE to notice you. Good luck
with that.
R
B. Lafferty
Johan was using EPO? How about Claudio, Retard? Interesting
progression for him from crappy Roche domestique to Tour contender. LOL!
http://www.lequipemag.fr/EquipeMag/Reportages/PORTFOLIO_100-ans-de-tourmalet_29.html
RicodJour
> Johan was using EPO? How about Claudio, Retard? Interesting
I think I've died and gone to heaven. You didn't mention LANCE! You
go, Barry!
WTF does that picture have to do with LANCE's result in the '95 Tour?
I was just pointing out that you were being a twit pulling placings
out of your ass and acting surprised that LANCE didn't podium when he
was 23. You should be thanking me for the constructive criticism.
R
B. Lafferty
>> Johan was using EPO? How about Claudio, Retard? Interesting
>> progression for him from crappy Roche domestique to Tour contender. LOL! http://www.lequipemag.fr/EquipeMag/Reportages/PORTFOLIO_100-ans-de-to...
>
> I think I've died and gone to heaven. You didn't mention LANCE! You
> go, Barry!
>
> WTF does that picture have to do with LANCE's result in the '95 Tour?
> I was just pointing out that you were being a twit pulling placings
> out of your ass and acting surprised that LANCE didn't podium when he
> was 23. You should be thanking me for the constructive criticism.
>
> R
learned his trade and what could be done to elevate pack fodder to
podium rider?
RicodJour
> learned his trade and what could be done to elevate pack fodder to
> podium rider?
What does that have to do with LANCE finishing 80th (sic)?
I realize that being scatterbrained probably helped your billable
hours, back when people would actually hire you, but this is the real
world now and focus is appreciated. Thanks.
R
B. Lafferty
Kurgan Gringioni
Dumbass -
You completely ignored the analysis regarding weight.
For a GT GC rider, minimizing weight is just as important as maximizing
B. Lafferty
No I haven't, Henry.
>
> For a GT GC rider, minimizing weight is just as important as maximizing
> power output.
And doping is of the paramount importance. Keep sharing your thoughts
and ideas with us, Henry. You're a very amusing fellow.
Fredmaster of Brainerd
Actually, you don't know that. You don't have the
numbers to show it.
My guess is that doping at less than say the 60% HCT
level makes no more than a 10% improvement in power,
and probably less.
I'm basing this, for example, on the much belabored
examples of Tour climbs like times up Alpe d'Huez.
A putative 10% bonus in power of course is a huge
advantage in a sport where the winner is decided by
fractions of a percent - 90 hours racing around France
and the race decided by less than 5 minutes on GC, or
a sprint decided by less than a bike length at the end
of a 5 hour classic.
However, a 10 percent improvement in climbing
could also be made by a 165 lb fattie who drops to
150 lbs. That seems like a lot, and I forget how much
weight LANCE supposedly dropped, but it was of
that order - maybe something like 180 to 165 lb,
though. There are other examples of riders who
dropped a bunch of weight and became decent
climbers, if not GC contenders.
There's really no way to know how much of LANCE's
success was due to the changes in his body and
how much to changes in his doctors, but using
his 80th place at the age of 23 proves nothing.
Many future GC riders were nowhere in their
first couple of Tours. Further, if a rider is not
riding for a top 20 GC place, he has no reason to
expend extra effort and may lose significant time
just by conserving energy and riding in the gruppetto.
In other words, a rider who spent energy to place
30th rather than 80th is not a smart rider (unless he
has to do it to help in the team GC competition).
Fredmaster Ben
H. Fred Kveck
Additionally, one needs to remember that LANCE wasn't riding the season the same
way he did later - with the singular focus on the TdF. Taking that into account in
addition to what you say about not bothering to waste energy trying to move up to a
higher unimportant finishing position, there's ample reason to not take that 80th
place as a particularly good indicator of LA's actual strength. But I doubt any of
that will matter much to Brian. I suspect he, like Keith, will still think that LA
"stole" multiple Tours from that nice clean Mr. Ullrich.
Kurgan Gringioni
"Fredmaster of Brainerd" <bjwe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:af06d698-219f-46ce...@v32g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
: Actually, you don't know that. You don't have the
: numbers to show it.
:
: My guess is that doping at less than say the 60% HCT
: level makes no more than a 10% improvement in power,
: and probably less.
Dumbass -
Agreed.
Laff's talking out his ass again, which is typical when it comes to
discussing actual bike racing.
Besides your Alpe'd'Huez analysis, there's the example of lifetime Cat 5 Tom
Kunich with his 49% hematocrit. I had a collegiate rider who was a lifetime
Cat 4 who had a 49% hematocrit. That was a stark contrast to my Cat 1
teamate who only had a 36% Hct. He was pissed when the doctor wouldn't
prescribe him EPO. They don't consider it anemia unless the patient's Hct
goes under 30%. If my Cat 1 teamate had doped up to 54%, that would've been
a 50% increase in red blood cells. I'm quite certain he wouldn't have led to
a linear
50% increase in wattage - dude might've been able to ride Indurain off his
wheel. The Cat 1 teamate agrees with this: he was fond of a Belgian saying
he learned when he raced over there: "you can't polish a turd".
thanks,
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
(42% Hct.)
Kurgan Gringioni
:
: And doping is of the paramount importance.
Dumbass -
Total bullshit.
The 2 most important considerations are:
1) genetics
2) desire
If a rider is lacking in either of those, doping will, of course, help them
improve, but it won't get them into the top level. Does doping matter at the
top level? Absolutely. It is a separator when their abilities are so evenly
matched. But still, it's not of paramount importance. We could pump you and
I full of EPO all day long and we'd be better, but we'd still suck.
Betty
> The Cat 1 teamate agrees with this: he was fond of a Belgian saying
> he learned when he raced over there: "you can't polish a turd".
That's better than the racehorses and donkeys one.
RicodJour
>
> There's really no way to know how much of LANCE's
> success was due to the changes in his body and
> how much to changes in his doctors, but using
> his 80th place at the age of 23 proves nothing.
> Many future GC riders were nowhere in their
> first couple of Tours. Further, if a rider is not
> riding for a top 20 GC place, he has no reason to
> expend extra effort and may lose significant time
> just by conserving energy and riding in the gruppetto.
> In other words, a rider who spent energy to place
> 30th rather than 80th is not a smart rider (unless he
> has to do it to help in the team GC competition).
36th place, not 80th - that was Barry projecting.
http://www.memoire-du-cyclisme.net/eta_tdf_1978_2005/tdf1995.php
R
RicodJour
>
> Additionally, one needs to remember that LANCE wasn't riding the season the same
> way he did later - with the singular focus on the TdF. Taking that into account in
> addition to what you say about not bothering to waste energy trying to move up to a
> higher unimportant finishing position, there's ample reason to not take that 80th
> place as a particularly good indicator of LA's actual strength. But I doubt any of
> that will matter much to Brian. I suspect he, like Keith, will still think that LA
> "stole" multiple Tours from that nice clean Mr. Ullrich.
There's an even better reason not to take that 80th placing as a
particularly good indicator of LA's actual strength - he finished in
36th place. Barry was just projecting and pulled a number out of his
fundamental orifice.
R
Anton Berlin
wrote:
> "Fredmaster of Brainerd" <bjwei...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:af06d698-219f-46ce...@v32g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
When someone has a high hct not from training or altitude adaptation
(Kunich) it could be an indication they are having sleep apnea.
Kunich should see a dr on this
RicodJour
>
> When someone has a high hct not from training or altitude adaptation
> (Kunich) it could be an indication they are having sleep apnea.
>
> Kunich should see a dr on this
He may be. He's stopped posting here, so he's found something else to
occupy his time.
R
Kurgan Gringioni
: ROTFL! You are such a retard, RetardJour. How do you think Johan
: learned his trade and what could be done to elevate pack fodder to
: podium rider?
Dumbass -
The competition was all doping too.
It really was the weight. See Fredmaster's reply to you elsewhere in this
thread.
Think about it for a change. A guy finished 32nd in the Tour de France, then
increases his power to weight ratio by 10%. The riders at that level are
separated by only a few percent.
H. Fred Kveck
RicodJour <rico...@worldemail.com> wrote:
Well, Counselor, what do you have to say for yourself? Where'd that 80th place
come from? Do you think a 36th place rider is "pack fodder," as you so eloquently
stated? Hmm? I think Counsel has his hands over his ears, saying, "Lalalalalal I
can't hear you lalalalalal..."
B. Lafferty
My error. He was 80th on the final stage. To answer your question, yes
he was still pack fodder or filler. He won a stage that was effectively
given to him by the peloton in memory of Casartelli. Why do you think he
was so interested in getting on the PED wagon big time?
Kurgan Gringioni
:
: My error. He was 80th on the final stage. To answer your question, yes
: he was still pack fodder or filler. He won a stage that was effectively
: given to him by the peloton in memory of Casartelli. Why do you think he
: was so interested in getting on the PED wagon big time?
Dumbass -
Take the 36th place rider from any year in the last 30, chop 10% of their
bodyweight out and next year, they're on the far end of the bell curve.
The differences in those riders are only a few percent.
B. Lafferty
Fredmaster of Brainerd
> On 8/2/2010 7:25 PM, H. Fred Kveck wrote:
>
>
>
> > RicodJour<ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
This reminds me of an admission that came out of the
mouth of, I think, a Reagan administration spokesman.
I don't remember the circumstances or the exact quote,
so hopefully I'm not committing an equally gross
misrepresentation, but it was something like
"What the President said may not have been accurate,
but it made the point very well, didn't it?"
Fredminister of Propaganda Ben
Kurgan Gringioni
: On 8/2/2010 9:21 PM, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
: >
: > "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
: Thanks again for sharing, mon petit Henri.
you're welcome.