My $0.02 on Lance Armstrong
Midtown Bob
spodosaurus
> His 7 wins of the tour speak for themselves blah blah blah...
>
>
> Me thinks , when LA had his cancer treatments, he could have been
> positive side-effect, for exmple, having larger oxygen carrying capacity
> in his blood or ?
>
> I don't believe LA cheated, he just got lucky with his experimental
> cancer treatment.
>
> whaddya think?
>
You're a retard.
--
spammage trappage: remove the underscores to reply
I'm going to die rather sooner than I'd like. I tried to protect my
neighbours from crime, and became the victim of it. Complications in
hospital following this resulted in a serious illness. I now need a bone
marrow transplant. Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow
transplant, too. Please volunteer to be a marrow donor:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/
RonSonic
I think he was bitten by a radioactive spider.
Ron
T
I think he was pretty amazing even before chemo, and cyclists tend to peak
pretty late.
That said, you could be right.
Jet
From the LKL interview:
COSTAS: In fairness, there have been tests done on you that indicate that
you're something of a physiological anomaly, that everything that could
possibly max out in terms of making someone ideally suited physically to
this task is present in you. Then couple that with the will, the
determination, the improvements in technology, nutrition and training. You
took all of that to the max.
>That said, you could be right.
In fairness to the discussion Armstrong had these stats:
Year.....Watts...Weight(kg).......Watts/kg
1994.....381........76.2...................5
1999.....415........71.6...................5.79
2000.....430........~72....................5.97
2001.....445........~72....................6.18
This kind of development in later years has pretty much not been seen
previously. Even with PEDs, it's hard to imagine this kind of progress.
Easy to see why there's skepticism. Some people react to PEDs more
favorably than others. I suspect that if he took any he took less than the
rest of the peloton.
-jet
B. Lafferty
"Jet" <j...@jetnet.com> wrote in message
news:mjh3h15t4a6lokgvk...@4ax.com...
6.7 Watts/kg .
photos...@gmail.com
American comeback instead.
Guy gets disease that decimates his body, and somehow that disease ends
up making him STRONGER?
Just curious, does anyone have knowledge as to if Lance is/has been a
client of a PR firm? I can't help but think that this whole epic life
tale was the work of a publicist. It's too perfect.
Jet
I stopped at 2001. Are you impugning my data or just putting out a figure
and failing to say that your figure is from 2004?
From http://www.tdfblog.com/2005/06/inside_armstron.html
"As Armstrong matured (and after cancer) his power at a constant oxygen
uptake increased by about 30 watts, from 374 to 403, while his weight
dropped by 6 kg, or about 13 pounds.
In Lance Armstrong's War, Daniel Coyle quotes Michele Ferrari that shortly
before the 2004 Tour, Armstrong was 74 kgs and 493 watts (that's at lactate
threshold, which the lab measured at 6.1 liters/minute in 1993). Ferrari
told Coyle the "magic number" for Tour contenders is 6.7 watts per kilogram
of body weight.
Cheung also speculates about Armstrong's increase in slow-twitch muscle
fiber, which Ferrari confirms in the book."
It -is- incredible. Hard to understand, never been seen before. Other
cyclists probably push close to that amount, but they probably didn't start
out as low as LA in their 20s.
But are you saying that taking a PED can take you from 5 watts to 6.7
watts?
Here's a link to allow readers to decide for themselves:
http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=3267
-jet
excel_...@hotmail.com
increased his Type 1 (i.e., slow twitch) fiber ratio; actually no study
to date is able to suggest this can occur in humans. However, ample
evidence exists showing that Type 2a fibers can become very close to
Type 1 fibers (ie, mre efficient). A better informed Ed Coyle, Ph.D.,
a leading expert on elite cyclists, showed that Armstrong increased his
cycling efficiency by 8%. For the average Joe, 8% seems small, but
physiologically speaking, 8% is a big deal! Add to that a loss of 20
lbs and you get a Tour contender/champion. Also give credit to Lance
for being THE ABSOLUTE MOST PROFESSIONAL pro in recent history. The
guy was far more dedicated than Ullrich, and it showed.
Doped or not, Lance is with out a doubt one of the greatest human
athletes ever.
CH
The Bill Rodgers
>Doped or not, Lance is with out a doubt one of the greatest human
>athletes ever.
Unless he's doped...Then he's just an average person on drugs.
TBR
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
"Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."
B. Lafferty
IIRC, the Coyle book's data was from 2002 or 2003. In 2004 Amrstrong came
in just a hair below 6.7
N. Silver
> excel wrote:
>> Doped or not, Lance is with out a doubt one
>> of the greatest human athletes ever.
> Unless he's doped...Then he's just an average
> person on drugs.
Hey, that's incorrect. As we all know, most of the
sport was on performance enhancing drugs. Lance
dominated and was never caught cheating. That's
a feat in and of itself. To paraphrase a great rider
from the past, if there were no drugs, riders would
average 20 mph. No one wants that.
Frank Forest
>
A guy missing a testicle should not have EXTRA TESTOSTERONE in his system
unless he was taking steroids. After all, Lance is the one-bally man.
Frank Forest
6.7
> watts?
>
>
What do you think Sherlock? He just did it by massaging his dead testicle?
Frank Forest
> a feat in and of itself. To paraphrase a great rider from the past, if
there were no drugs, riders would average 20 mph. No one wants that.
>
>
results from 1999 show drugs. They (being French faggots) just have not had
the guts to take his 1999 title away from him and officially label him a
cheater.
Brown@yahoo.com Goodman Brown
than anytime since I've been here.
"The Bill Rodgers" <T...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:33m3h1t059n07bh3m...@4ax.com...
Frank Forest
if Lance is/has been a client of a PR firm? >
Of course he has a PR firm jerko. He is selling books, doing speaking tours
and endorsing products. He is making more money since he lost his nutsack
than he ever did before.
The Bill Rodgers
<mat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Hey, that's incorrect. As we all know, most of the
>sport was on performance enhancing drugs. Lance
>dominated and was never caught cheating. That's
>a feat in and of itself.
Then strip him of his cycling titles, and give him one for being a
bigger sleazebag than the rest.
>o paraphrase a great rider
>rom the past, if there were no drugs, riders would
>verage 20 mph. No one wants that.
Why not? Too afraid to see yourselves as you really are? That's just
pathetic.
The Bill Rodgers
wrote:
>A guy missing a testicle should not have EXTRA TESTOSTERONE in his system
>unless he was taking steroids.
You dork, testosterone levels are unchanged by denutting one ball.
The Bill Rodgers
wrote:
>Actually Lance did get caught cheating. The Tour de France claims that his
>results from 1999 show drugs. They (being French faggots) just have not had
>the guts to take his 1999 title away from him and officially label him a
>cheater.
No dumb(_!_) you need to go read the article again. ONE LAB found a
positive in sample B, and since sample A was long ago destroyed, it
can never be confirmed. Only azzholes like those greasy ba*turds would
pull such a low-life move.
The Bill Rodgers
wrote:
>>o paraphrase a great rider
>>rom the past, if there were no drugs, riders would
>>verage 20 mph. No one wants that.
>
>Why not? Too afraid to see yourselves as you really are? That's just
>pathetic.
And if you applied that rule, then why even bother banning drugs? Just
make it a free-for-all.
Montesquiou
"Frank Forest" <fr...@policia.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
M3mQe.11818$2_....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> "N. Silver" < Lance dominated and was never caught cheating. That's
>> a feat in and of itself. To paraphrase a great rider from the past, if
> there were no drugs, riders would average 20 mph. No one wants that.
>>
>>
> Actually Lance did get caught cheating. The Tour de France
NO, l'Equipe
>claims that his
> results from 1999 show drugs.
Yes with documents
>They (being French faggots)
Good morning, Mr Patterson !
>just have not had
> the guts to take his 1999 title away from him and officially label him a
> cheater.
>
>
For 500 000 French/year and 100 000 Germans + Spanish etc... to miss him
from 1999 ........... to 1994.
No doubt : it was EPO !
RonSonic
I simply don't buy that. Or I'm misunderstanding you. There are not many young
GC contenders, you don't find tour contenders of Lance's age in 1994. So I'd say
that this sort of development is downright typical.
>Easy to see why there's skepticism. Some people react to PEDs more
>favorably than others. I suspect that if he took any he took less than the
>rest of the peloton.
Ya know, if Lance had not recovered so amazingly well, the last era would've
belonged to Ullrich and we'd all get to argue about what a biofreak the old East
German sports labs had produced.
Ron
Frank Forest
etc... to miss him from 1999 ........... to 1994. No doubt : it was EPO !
>
>
Frank Forest
banning drugs? Just
> make it a free-for-all.
>
AGENTS which hide the steroids in the athletes who have the most funding and
can afford to do steroids AND masking agents. The media used to cover this
topic, then when they realized that Pro Sports are essentially a total fraud
they stopped covering Masking Agents. Now they focus on the occasional dumb
bastard who actually gets caught. If most Pro Athletes (and Olympic
Athletes) are doing Steroids and Growth Hormones, why do only a small amount
(18 out of 24,000 at the last Olympics) get caught??? Obviously the testing
is BULLSHIT.
A professional athlete missing a testicle should need Testosterone
replacement steroids anyway. The fact that Lance is not "officially" getting
Testosterone just proves the fucker is cheating the system. It is easier to
do the amounts he wants and use masking agents than it would be to do it
"officially" and have to stick to the much-lower-levels that doctors
prescribe.
Frank Forest
denutting one ball.
>
YOU SHOULD KNOW.
Frank Forest
last era would've belonged to Ullrich and we'd all get to argue about what a
biofreak the old East
> German sports labs had produced.
>
drcag...@yahoo.com
described how
after his battle with cancer, he had "no physique" left- he has wasted
away
and had very little muscle mass left.
I believe he said he then more or less re-designed his body from the
the skeleton out,
more or less (my phrase) , to be a Grand Tour rider.
I've always guessed that he added JUST the musculature applicable to
bike racing, and was therefore ever after somewhat lighter than his
competitors of
the same strength.
I also speculate that NO-ONE, or at least no-one out of the 1/100 of 1%
with Lance's innate ability, could intentionally starve themselves to
the degree cancer did to Lance- it would be some of the worst torture
imaginable.
It certainly seems that Lance takes it right to edge with starvation.
I'm guessing Tour rider weight is NOT a "healthy" weight, he looked
awful, awful haggard for a 33 year old this year.
The contrast to the one-year younger Ulrich is pretty striking, but of
course Jan has never been so ill.
Don't you think Jan would not look so ruddy and healthy if he really
was down to the weight needed to beat someone like Armstrong, whose
body has been chiseled away by fixation on excellence and suffering
most human beings will, fortunately, never know?
Tom Kunich
"Midtown Bob" <f...@lrsg.com> wrote in message
news:Nm9Qe.7825$Rc.7...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> Me thinks , when LA had his cancer treatments, he could have been
> treated with biologics ( biologically custom made drugs, google it ).
> There could have been something in his treatments that could have
> been a positive side-effect, for exmple, having larger oxygen
> carrying capacity in his blood or ?
I think that when one testical was removed they put in thirteen or fourteen
robotoc devices which made him nothing more than an automaton. Everyone else
has been racing against a Cadillac Northstar equipped one-nutted wonder.
Torched Smurf
20 mph? Are you saying I could win the TdF if no one was doping?
-Smurf
Carl Sundquist
> >>That said, you could be right.
> >
> >In fairness to the discussion Armstrong had these stats:
> >
> >Year.....Watts...Weight(kg).......Watts/kg
> >1994.....381........76.2...................5
> >1999.....415........71.6...................5.79
> >2000.....430........~72....................5.97
> >2001.....445........~72....................6.18
> >
> >This kind of development in later years has pretty much not been seen
> >previously. Even with PEDs, it's hard to imagine this kind of progress.
>
> I simply don't buy that. Or I'm misunderstanding you. There are not many young
> GC contenders, you don't find tour contenders of Lance's age in 1994. So I'd say
> that this sort of development is downright typical.
LANCE was born in September 1971. Almost 23 in July 1994. Although a
team management decision, IIRC he did not finish the TdF in 1994.
Ullrich was born in February 1973. 23 years old when he was 2nd in
1996, 24 when he won in 1997.
Lemond was born in June 1961. Shortly after turning 23, he placed 3rd
in the 1984 TdF.
Merckx was born in June 1945. He won the 1968 Giro before turning 23.
He won the his first TdF shortly after turning 24.
Fignon was born in August 1960. He won his first TdF shortly before
turning 23.
Hinault was born in November 1954. He won his first TdF in 1978 at 23.
Zoetemelk was born in March 1946. He placed 2nd at age 24 in the 1970
TdF, the first of 9 top 5 finishes.
I'm sure there are more examples, but the point being that although we
frequently think of riders as not maturing physically until their later
20's, clearly Tour success is not so rare at younger ages.
Blair P. Houghton
>I've always guessed that he added JUST the musculature applicable to
>bike racing, and was therefore ever after somewhat lighter than his
>competitors of
>the same strength.
Basically. He's got a much higher ratio of Type-I
(aerobically specialized) to Type-II (anaerobically
specialized) muscle fibers than the average person, even
the average pro cyclist. He leverages it by spinning
at higher rpms in easier gears on the climbs, where he
doesn't have the force available to mash bigger gears
slowly, but takes advantage of the fact that for a given
power output higher rpms are generally more efficient
(in the steady state; i.e., up to the point where you
can't maintain the motion at those rpms; efficiency being
different from endurance).
--Blair
"Go fast and turn left.
Then right. Then up. Then down."
Blair P. Houghton
>Ya know, if Lance had not recovered so amazingly well, the last era would've
>belonged to Ullrich and we'd all get to argue about what a biofreak the old East
>German sports labs had produced.
Nope. Pantani wouldn't have lost his cool and Ullrich
would still be hind tit.
--Blair
"IMO."
Torched Smurf
Doofus,
"Spinning" is not more efficient. Furthermore, bike racers do not care
what is more efficient "for a given power output." All that matters is
increasing one's sustainable power output, efficiency be damned.
Thanks,
-Smurf
Curtis L. Russell
wrote:
>I think that when one testical was removed they put in thirteen or fourteen
>robotoc devices which made him nothing more than an automaton. Everyone else
>has been racing against a Cadillac Northstar equipped one-nutted wonder.
Have they tested for nanobots? Is WADA even TESTING for nanobots? This
is what's wrong with bicycle racing - the officials are so damned far
behind the curve.
Lance won because he took several hours off in every stage and let the
little nanobots do the work. EPO was just a lubricant. You heard it
here first - I only need a couple more people to make it a
'well-known' conspiracy and Jeff can take it to print.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
Alex Rodriguez
>His 7 wins of the tour speak for themselves blah blah blah...
>Me thinks , when LA had his cancer treatments, he could have been =
>treated with biologics ( biologically custom made drugs, google it ). =
>There could have been something in his treatments that could have been a =
>positive side-effect, for exmple, having larger oxygen carrying capacity =
>in his blood or ?
>I don't believe LA cheated, he just got lucky with his experimental =
>cancer treatment.
>whaddya think?
Very, very far fetched. Any of those bilogics should have been out of his
body by the time he was back as a contender.
--------------
Alex
spodosaurus
Not to mention the fact that they're none too nice to have in you...
--
spammage trappage: remove the underscores to reply
I'm going to die rather sooner than I'd like. I tried to protect my
neighbours from crime, and became the victim of it. Complications in
hospital following this resulted in a serious illness. I now need a bone
marrow transplant. Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow
transplant, too. Please volunteer to be a marrow donor:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/
The Bill Rodgers
leaves the post in. Then some lube, and off he goes, at TWICE the
speed of the rest.
Merovingian
samples" that aren't even confirmed to be Lance's.
spodosaurus
> Cry me a river, people. You people
Careful who you include in your genrealisations when you can't even
figure out how to respond to the appropriate post in a thread...
> make assumptions based off of "B
> samples" that aren't even confirmed to be Lance's.
>
Blair P. Houghton
>Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>> <drcag...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >I've always guessed that he added JUST the musculature applicable to
>> >bike racing, and was therefore ever after somewhat lighter than his
>> >competitors of
>> >the same strength.
>>
>> Basically. He's got a much higher ratio of Type-I
>> (aerobically specialized) to Type-II (anaerobically
>> specialized) muscle fibers than the average person, even
>> the average pro cyclist. He leverages it by spinning
>> at higher rpms in easier gears on the climbs, where he
>> doesn't have the force available to mash bigger gears
>> slowly, but takes advantage of the fact that for a given
>> power output higher rpms are generally more efficient
>> (in the steady state; i.e., up to the point where you
>> can't maintain the motion at those rpms; efficiency being
>> different from endurance).
>>
>> Then right. Then up. Then down."
>
>Doofus,
>
>"Spinning" is not more efficient.
You gonna make me look up the citation?
Here's the finding: at a given power output, higher cadence
is more efficient in terms of output power vs. energy burned
by the body.
Sounds counterintuitive, but that's what they found.
Seems to be what Lance Armstrong has found as well.
He pioneered spinning up hills. Someone grinding up
the same hill at the same speed would sap more energy.
But it requires that your muscles be capable of performing
aerobically at high force. Which requires more muscle
dedicated to aerobic performance.
>Furthermore, bike racers do not care
>what is more efficient "for a given power output." All that matters is
>increasing one's sustainable power output, efficiency be damned.
If he can put more energy into the pedals and waste less
in the muscles, he's doing that. You can, too, if you can
spin up hills.
--Blair
"Good luck."
rick++
Because cancer cells grow much faster, the idea is they
acquire the poisonous doses sooner and die faster.
I heard some people suffer side-effects for many years
such as fatigue and decreased mental abilities.
However, if it beats the alternative ...
The Bill Rodgers
>some people suffer side-effects for many years
>such as fatigue and decreased mental abilities.
How long ago were you treated Rick?
Torched Smurf
Look, this is just a load of nonsense. I don't know who's been feeding
it to you, but kick them in the nuts, okay? Here are the facts:
1) Spinning at high cadences is LESS efficient in terms of energy
burned at a given power output. But that doesn't matter, because...
2) Bike racers don't care about being fuel-efficient. They care about
being FAST, and if they have to eat more because of it, it's no big
deal. They're not operating on a food stipend.
Higher cadence is good, but not for the reasons you state. It's good
because, if you're very fit aerobically (with or without medical
assistance), you can maintain high wattages for longer periods of time
if you spin.
-Smurf
SuckOff
That was too funny Bill!!
No, really, on behalf of all the halfwitted fujktards on this newgroup
I honestly say "Thank you!".
Gosh....replying to you is like shooting fish in the barrel 'cept you
stink more. And they're not as slimy.
alphawave
Blair P. Houghton
>
>Look, this is just a load of nonsense. I don't know who's been feeding
>it to you, but kick them in the nuts, okay? Here are the facts:
>
>1) Spinning at high cadences is LESS efficient in terms of energy
False, and there's data to prove it.
>burned at a given power output. But that doesn't matter, because...
>2) Bike racers don't care about being fuel-efficient. They care about
>being FAST, and if they have to eat more because of it, it's no big
>deal. They're not operating on a food stipend.
They're operating on a maximal rate of delivery of
energy to muscular tissue, and anything to increases the
efficiency of converting that to forward motion, they try.
--Blair
"Doubt me if you want."
Bubba Joe Tyrone Malone
race without being accused of cheating by a bunch of Frenchmen. Doesn't it
tell us anything about the French that their greatest war hero is a girl?
(Albeit, the great St. Joan of Arc, but still ...)
"Midtown Bob" <f...@lrsg.com> wrote in message
news:Nm9Qe.7825$Rc.7...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>His 7 wins of the tour speak for themselves blah blah blah...
>Me thinks , when LA had his cancer treatments, he could have been treated
>with
>biologics ( biologically custom made drugs, google it ). There could have
>been
>something in his treatments that could have been a positive side-effect,
>for exmple,
>having larger oxygen carrying capacity in his blood or ?
>I don't believe LA cheated, he just got lucky with his experimental cancer
>treatment.
>whaddya think?