The 'doping levels the playing field' theory is a null argument.
Anton Berlin
peloton of dopers then if he remained clean in a field of clean riders
the results would be the same - Lance would win."
I don't think this is the case - even in a perfect experiment (where
all riders were dosed with the same amounts and equal intervals) - I
would suspect that some would respond better (or extraordinary) to the
doping while others would only marginally improve and some may react
negatively and even get sick.
Where's a good basis for this idea? Look back to the OTC where Strock
and Kaiter were injected with cortisone
(a drug Lance was using as late as 1999) During that period Lance
excels in the Worlds while these guys get too sick to live.
Additional evidence includes Evanshine. And of course Lance
eventually comes down with cancer despite his day to day tolerance of
the doping cocktail he's using - most likely EPO and cortisone.
(Cortisone, a potent but legal* performance-enhancing drug used to
dampen inflammation, also reduces
the discomfort of heavy daily training and competition and lifts the
mood. It is also widely abused
by professional cyclists.)
* legal from the medical point of view
http://www.scifun.org/Conversations/Conversations4Teachers/2006/Tainted%20Glory.PDF
(Also in 1999, Armstrong tested positive for a glucocorticosteroid
hormone. Armstrong explained he had used an external cortisone
ointment to treat a saddle sore and produced a prescription for it.
The amount detected was below the threshold and said to be consistent
with the amount used for a topical skin cream, but UCI rules required
that prescriptions be shown to sports authorities in advance of use.)
Recall that Scott Moninger took a 2 year suspension for something most
cyclists believe he got through a tainted batch of herbal products.
Bernard Thévenet won the 1975 and 1977 Tour de France editions by
using cortisone. "I was doped with cortisone for three years and there
were many like me," he said.[30] The experience had ruined his health,
he said.
Perhaps Lance's strength is not his ability', desire or discipline -
(Bostick was disciplined and anyone that rode in ABQ in the 80s and
90s can tell you incredible stories of that time) but Lance's greatest
strength would be his ability to tolerate these drugs - in combination
and benefit in a way that others can not.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2006/04/news/six-years-later-strock-case-comes-to-court_9763
Summary from the PDF referenced above - Thus,
drug use in a subgroup of athletes who — even in
the absence of drugs — are able to compete at an
elite level causes their separation into a distinct
athletic population, distanced from “natural” humans
by a margin determined by the potency of the
drug combinations that are used. These athletes,
quite simply, have moved off the natural bell-shaped
curve of normal human performance.
If 7 Tour wins during the era of doping isn't moving off the bell
curve - then what is? I submit that Lance was just more tolerant of
these chemicals.
PS - Except for the day that he foamed at the mouth during that TT.
I'd love to have recordings and transcripts of the emails and phone
calls to Ferrari and whoever else they called that night. I'll bet
Jeff Novitzky would too.
(maybe he already has)
RicodJour
>
> If 7 Tour wins during the era of doping isn't moving off the bell
> curve - then what is? I submit that Lance was just more tolerant of
> these chemicals.
Bell curves aren't normal, when you're talking about exceptional
people. Look at LANCE's results in the triathlon before he hit
puberty and in his teens. Maybe Johan just _knew_ a 13 year old kid
in Texas could be doped to win, and started him early...? Or your
reasoning is shit. I'm going with the latter. Thanks.
R
Anton Berlin
RetardJour,
What is it about licking Lance's testicle that you find so
delicious?
Seriously, no straight man here understands your hero worshiping man
crush - you really should explain yourself.
RicodJour
> On Jul 31, 11:32 pm, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 1, 12:20 am, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > If 7 Tour wins during the era of doping isn't moving off the bell
> > > curve - then what is? I submit that Lance was just more tolerant of
> > > these chemicals.
>
> > Bell curves aren't normal, when you're talking about exceptional
> > people. Look at LANCE's results in the triathlon before he hit
> > puberty and in his teens. Maybe Johan just _knew_ a 13 year old kid
> > in Texas could be doped to win, and started him early...? Or your
> > reasoning is shit. I'm going with the latter. Thanks.
>
>
>
> What is it about licking Lance's testicle that you find so
> delicious?
>
> Seriously, no straight man here understands your hero worshiping man
> crush - you really should explain yourself.
I'm just pointing out the obvious, bro. Your reasoning hemisphere is
broken...maybe both of them.
Time to find the pillow. Turn off the lights when you leave.
G'night.
R
B. Lafferty
RetardJour is just hoping that Lance will stroke him one day for being
such a good Lance pr flack here on rbr. If he's lucky, he may even score
a couple of Mellow Johnny water bottles for his Nishiki road bike.
Phil H
It's not hero worship. If you are going to bring him down, bring him
down with irrefutable evidence....not speculative pseudo science (1 +
1 = 3)
Phil H
Anton Berlin
Phil it is science. You throw 10,000 athletes into a doping
experiment (called professional cycling) and you're going to end up
with one athlete - strictly due to the size of the experiment that can
assimilate, tolerate and benefit from dope better that the rest of
them. As the beginning of the experiment it could have been any one
of the 10,000. After running the course of the experiment iterations
(days training, days eating right, doses of doping, synergistic
benefits, urine tests escaped, bribes paid) there will be only one
'lucky' winner. In this experiment and this period it was
Armstrong.
What part do you think is speculation?
raamman
>
> - Show quoted text -
all of it- you have no facts
Anton Berlin
and you have no comprehension.
GoneBeforeMyTime
Problem is nobody fully researched and covered it like a documented
scientific case study over the last 20 years. The riders did their job, but
the research didn't get done! They should of filmed all the EPO, Steroid and
blood transfusions for the film vaults. A hour of Frontline just wouldn't
the same without them. They can't just do a spinoff from Paul Kimmage rough
ride.
I'm amazed that a closet video has not surfaced on Youtube yet.
Mark J.
> On Aug 1, 12:20 am, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> If 7 Tour wins during the era of doping isn't moving off the bell
>> curve - then what is? I submit that Lance was just more tolerant of
>> these chemicals.
>
> Bell curves aren't normal,
Not /relevant/, I could accept, at a stretch, when talking about the
exceptional. Not /normal/? No, sorry.
Mark J.
Mathematical terminology police
Phil H
>
The speculation about who got what, how much and when......hardly a
controlled test/experiment and hence a worthless conclusion. Or is a
winner by definition a doper?
The real question is, how do you get reliable data to tell the
difference between a winner who was clean and a doped winner? .....and
please don't give me any of that Lemond crap otherwise its pointless
having a bike race.
I can hear it now....bike racer A was penalized 20 seconds for having
a blood count 2 points higher than his max profile. We don't know what
he did but just in case it was illegal.
Phil H
Kurgan Gringioni
"Anton Berlin" <truth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:00174a68-70d3-4716...@g21g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Phil it is science. You throw 10,000 athletes into a doping
experiment (called professional cycling) and you're going to end up
with one athlete - strictly due to the size of the experiment that can
assimilate, tolerate and benefit from dope better that the rest of
them.
<snip>
Dumbass -
IMO, your theory's premise is flawed.
If an athlete's body can't handle a small amount of drugs, then they're not
going to make it even if the peloton was completely clean. Bodies that
fragile can't handle big training loads necessary to be at the top. One of
the most overlooked aspects of natural talent is a rider's ability to
recover day to day.
I had some collegiate riders who looked like they were gonna be rock stars,
but couldn't handle six hour rides without their immune system taking a big
dive. They never advanced that far. Conversely, there were some guys who
seemed like they were going to be decent but ended up being really good
because they were able to do heavy training (lotta hours) and recover. They
were all clean. I'll bet that if drugs were thrown into the mix, the outcome
would've been the same - the guys who had the solid constitution would still
turn out better.
thanks,
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
Michael Press
<eac24123-271b-40d5...@r10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
Anton Berlin <truth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Bernard Thévenet won the 1975 and 1977 Tour de France editions by
> using cortisone. "I was doped with cortisone for three years and there
> were many like me," he said.[30] The experience had ruined his health,
> he said.
By 1975 corticosteroids were well known health risks
when taken regularly; particularly by an otherwise
healthy person. Taken by an unwell person the benefit
can make the risk worthwhile.
Cyclists need the best medical advice available,
and people should not interfere with the patient-physician
relationship.
--
Michael Press
K. Fred Gauss
> RicodJour wrote:
>> On Aug 1, 12:20 am, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> If 7 Tour wins during the era of doping isn't moving off the bell
>>> curve - then what is? I submit that Lance was just more tolerant of
>>> these chemicals.
>>
>> Bell curves aren't normal,
>
> Not /relevant/, I could accept, at a stretch, when talking about the
> exceptional. Not /normal/? No, sorry.
>
> Mark J.
> Mathematical terminology police
Yeah, that was funny in a "circles aren't round" or "sky isn't up" kind
of way.
Betty
> I don't think this is the case - even in a perfect experiment (where
> all riders were dosed with the same amounts and equal intervals) - I
> would suspect that some would respond better (or extraordinary) to the
> doping while others would only marginally improve and some may react
> negatively and even get sick.
You must be hoping you'd respond extraordinarily to Viagra.