For Coggan and Coyle
B. Lafferty
78,9 kg à 79,7 kg entre novembre 1992 et novembre 1999. Selon Ed Coyle, le
poids de forme du coureur, lorsqu'il est devenu champion du monde en 1993,
était de 75 kg. Interrogé sur son poids de course après son cancer lors de
la séance d'arbitrage avec SCA, Lance Armstrong explique : "J'aurais aimé
débuter le Tour à 72 kg ou 72,5. Faut pas rêver. Je n'ai probablement jamais
atteint ce chiffre. En général, quand j'affichais un petit 74 kg, j'étais
satisfait." Lors de ses Tours victorieux, l'Américain pesait donc seulement
un kilo de moins qu'avant son cancer.
Concernant l'évolution de ses capacités respiratoires, l'expert australien
relève que Lance Armstrong ne dispose pas d'une VO2 "exceptionnellement
élevée" comme l'affirme Ed Coyle. Selon le Journal de physiologie appliquée,
non seulement ses valeurs ne progressent pas, mais elles reculent, passant
de 81,2 en 1993 - année où il ne parvenait pas à terminer le Tour de
France - à 71,5 en 1999 - année de la première de ses sept victoires.
Conclusion de Michael Ashenden : "Aucun doute possible : il a utilisé des
produits dopants à un moment donné."
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3242,36-824775@51-789918,0.html
amit....@gmail.com
B. Lafferty wrote:
> Conclusion de Michael Ashenden : "Aucun doute possible : il a utilisé des
> produits dopants à un moment donné."
DUMBASS,
THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE OF DOPING.
Bob Schwartz
It's every bit as conclusive as the stuff Vayer had. With
analytical skills like that you'd never make it as a gym
teacher in France.
Bob Schwartz
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
Evidence is unnecessary. Only conviction (I mean conviction
in the religious-belief sense, although the other sense applies
as well) is necessary.
Did LANCE really weigh 79 kg when Coyle tested him? What a
fat fuck! Although, it was in November, when he'd already have
been drinking beer and eating unweighed oatmeal for a couple
of months. I'm impressed that the SCA arbitration deposition
went so far as to interrogate LANCE's weight, although surely
they could have found some records (doctors' charts?) to
subpoena rather than relying on his imperfect recollections.
Everybody lies about their weight.
Ben
Who, me, body image problems?
B. Lafferty
"Bob Schwartz" <bob.sc...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:xpBZg.1018$T_1...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
The Myth:
If you look at my weight. My body weight in the Tour de France this year,
I'll be 20 pounds lighter that I was in 1996. That's significant weight when
you're talking about going over the Alps and the Pyrenees and things like
the Tour.--Lance Armstrong
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/thenetwork/news/2000/07/11/one_on_one_armstrong/
Body weight: He was 20 pounds lighter after cancer, but with the same
strength. --Discovery Channel
http://school.discovery.com/lessonplans/programs/lanceArmstrong/
[CNN Interviewer] Fifteen pounds lighter and pain hearty from his medical
ordeal, Armstrong discovered he was stronger than before the illness. He won
the 1999 tour by excelling in his former Waterloo, the mountains. It is a
trade that has become his cycling signature.
ARMSTRONG: That's significant weight when you're talking about going over
the Alps and the Pyrenees and things like the tour.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0107/29/sm.12.html
America's Lance Armstrong was born in Austin, Texas on September 18, 1971.
He turned pro after the Olympics in 1992. His height is 5'10½" (179 cm) and
racing weight was 158-165 pounds (72-75 kg). ..........After the cancer,
however, his body dropped most of its muscle mass. Through training,
Armstrong further streamlined his body and rebuilt himself into a Tour de
France contender. His weight after the rebuild was 15 pounds (7 kg) less
than his racing weight prior to the cancer.--Cycling Hall of Fame
http://www.cyclinghalloffame.com/riders/rider_bio.asp?rider_id=30
The cancer itself and the chemotherapy took away 15 to 20 pounds. Imagine
going out to your car stripping away everything but the engine and maybe the
seat. That's what happened to Lance.--Bill Strickland on PBS.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/sports/july-dec01/armstrong_7-30.html
The Reality:
"J'aurais aimé débuter le Tour à 72 kg ou 72,5. Faut pas rêver. Je n'ai
probablement jamais
atteint ce chiffre. En général, quand j'affichais un petit 74 kg, j'étais
satisfait." --Lance Armstrong under oath.
Dr. Michael Ashenden has far better credentials than Antoine Vayer.
Interesting though that the both come to the same conclusion.
What I'd like to know is the source for the 71.5 VO2max in 1999. Presumably
it was contained in discovery materials provided by Armstrong's side during
the arbitration. With that VO2 there's clearly hope for all master fatties
to climb like Pantani--or Armstrong. :-)
wsc...@udel.edu
> however, his body dropped most of its muscle mass.
IIRC, Coyle's paper showed that at least in the off-season Armstrong's
weight and % of which that was muscle vs. fat were the same after
cancer.
I'd conclude from that that the weight loss as Tour time approached was
the key and that whatever type of tissue that was loss had nothing to
do with his cancer. Pre-cancer (and early in the season post-cancer)
Armstrong appears to have simply competed at a much higher weight then
he did at the Tour. He certainly carried more fat and this whole idea
that cancer robbed him of his muscle mass seems to be a myth.
Finally, it seems to me that the idea that Armstrong didn't dope before
he got cancer and did afterwords which seems to be the basis for a lot
of the doubt over his Tour performances being natural is silly. He, in
all probability, was doping all along.
B. Lafferty
<amit....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161221926.8...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
B. Lafferty wrote:
DUMBASS,
Incorrect. It is circumstantial evidence. The weight of circumstantial
evidence of doping continues to grow.
dusto...@mac.com
> http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3242,36-824775@51-789918,0.html
Confidentiel.
Officiel.
Nothing in English yet? I think "officiel" will produce a smaller thud
than "confidentiel".
Here's some more newspaper coverage IRT Lance's body weight you might
enjoy:
http://www.statesman.com/search/content/editorial/stories/10/13/dyc_lancerun5.html
As the French say, "Ooo la la!"
(Note: Easily made into a desktop background!) --D-y
B. Lafferty
<dusto...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1161267979.1...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> B. Lafferty quoted:
>
>> http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3242,36-824775@51-789918,0.html
>
> Confidentiel.
>
> Officiel.
>
> Nothing in English yet? I think "officiel" will produce a smaller thud
> than "confidentiel".
With the new ruling from the British Law Lords as to libel, it will be
interesting to see if it does come out in English. How should we measure
thud? By Armstrong's legal fees incurred?
>
> Here's some more newspaper coverage IRT Lance's body weight you might
> enjoy:
>
> http://www.statesman.com/search/content/editorial/stories/10/13/dyc_lancerun5.html
>
> As the French say, "Ooo la la!"
Now Henry will be boking a flight to NYC to watch.
dusto...@mac.com
B. Lafferty wrote:
> With the new ruling from the British Law Lords as to libel, it will be
> interesting to see if it does come out in English.
The obvious point is, the first tome didn't find a publisher in the
USA. I'd say there is a story there. It doesn't have anything to do, I
would think, with English law.
> How should we measure
> thud?
Assuming a publisher is found, by book sales, of course.
> By Armstrong's legal fees incurred?
Well, if Lance's lawyers are on retainer, he probably did pretty well
on the $7.5 million from the last go-round when the first book,
foolishly as it turned out, was used as "evidence".
> Now Henry will be boking a flight to NYC to watch.
You'll be driving, I take it? --D-y
B. Lafferty
<dusto...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1161275760.5...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>
>> With the new ruling from the British Law Lords as to libel, it will be
>> interesting to see if it does come out in English.
>
> The obvious point is, the first tome didn't find a publisher in the
> USA. I'd say there is a story there. It doesn't have anything to do, I
> would think, with English law.
>
>> How should we measure
>> thud?
>
> Assuming a publisher is found, by book sales, of course.
65,000+ copies sold in France, IIRC. Not too bad. I suspect that in the US
the threat of litigation was enough to prevent a publisher from putting it
on the shelves. Not that Armstrong would have prevailed in court here with
Times v. Sullivan to contend with, but I can certainly understand publishers
not wanting to get involved in costly litigation. My comment above was
directed to publishing it in the UK now that the libel law is no longer so
weighted against the publisher. I wonder if the Times and Walsh would have
settled if that decision had come down a year ago.
>
>> By Armstrong's legal fees incurred?
>
> Well, if Lance's lawyers are on retainer, he probably did pretty well
> on the $7.5 million from the last go-round when the first book,
> foolishly as it turned out, was used as "evidence".
Retainer does not mean no billable hours. It's usually billable hours
against the retainer. Foolish? The CSA case was never decided and there was
no credibility assigned to any of the witnesses or other evidence admitted
in the arbitration proceeding.
>
>> Now Henry will be boking a flight to NYC to watch.
>
> You'll be driving, I take it? --D-y
>
Not likely.
dusto...@mac.com
B. Lafferty wrote:
> 65,000+ copies sold in France, IIRC. Not too bad.
Reason enough for the authors to go to the trough again, esp.
considering journalist wages.
> I suspect that in the US
> the threat of litigation was enough to prevent a publisher from putting it
> on the shelves. Not that Armstrong would have prevailed in court here with
> Times v. Sullivan to contend with, but I can certainly understand publishers
> not wanting to get involved in costly litigation.
Litigation = free publicity, stoking the sensationalist nature of the
book. Consider, Armstong's lawyers, given Times v. Sullivan, might not
enter into an attempt to defame via a patently unwinnable court case or
arbitration as did SCA (my reading of the events).
> My comment above was
> directed to publishing it in the UK now that the libel law is no longer so
> weighted against the publisher. I wonder if the Times and Walsh would have
> settled if that decision had come down a year ago.
Armstrong lives in the USA. Given our love of building up public
figures, and wonderful enthusiasm for tearing them back down, I would
think this book would be a bombshell best seller, if a publisher took
it on. Again, there's the story with the book (Confidentiel), and this
new one, too. "Not a viable business proposition", or it would have
been in the stores, and timed for the beginning of the TdF, too.
Wondering, what makes it "Official"? A medical doctor theorizing IRT
"Lance data" he read somewhere, instead of a mere PhD?
> Retainer does not mean no billable hours. It's usually billable hours
> against the retainer.
I just wanted to wave that multi-million-dollar chickenshit settlement
figure around a little. Is SCA a public company? If I were a
stockholder I'd be screaming bloody fucking murder over wasting my
money in a very public mud-slinging "contest" (it wasn't, really) in
service of an in-front lost cause.
> Foolish? The CSA case was never decided and there was
> no credibility assigned to any of the witnesses or other evidence admitted
> in the arbitration proceeding.
Decided where it counts, O Grasper of Straws.
It seems no one admired the dirty laundry much. CSA's legal team stank
up the joint, paid a healthy fine for doing so, and went home with
their tails between their legs. You're close on the "credibility
assigned to witnesses"; apparently there wasn't much there. Really poor
coaching, too, IRT the "I hate Lance" statement made by Betsy. Or maybe
she just ignored some really good advice. Who knows? --D-y
amit....@gmail.com
dumbass,
nothing in this line of "analysis" -- based on physical parameters and
crude calculations -- connects LANCE to drugs.
if you tried to present this as "circumstantial evidence", the other
side would strip you naked,
the best circumstantial evidence against lance is from swart and from
potentially other teamates (like the andreu vaughters IMs).
B. Lafferty
<amit....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161282695.0...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
dumbass,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Beleive in any fantasy you like such as Armstong and USPS being a clean
team. Ooops.....not all of them were clean according to rider admissions.
B. Lafferty
<dusto...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1161282617....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Non-lawyers, such as you, really do make stupid remarks about legal topics.
Whatever.
aco...@earthlink.net
I'm not sure what this has to do with me, but:
1) I don't believe that Ed has accurate data on Armstrong's exact mass
at all time points for which he has, e.g., VO2max data;
2) even if he wasn't any lighter at the start of each Tour than he was
pre-cancer, and even if his VO2max didn't increase, it would still be
possible for his performance power to increase, as a result of A) an
increase in LT relative to VO2max, and/or B) an improvement in cycling
efficiency. Indeed, it would be very surprising if such changes did not
occur, and finally;
3) if Ashenden draws his conclusion based simply on the data presented
in the above quotes (and he himself is not being misquoted), then I'd
say that it's a good thing he left academia for other endeavors, as his
critical thinking skills appear suspect.
Andy Coggan
dusto...@mac.com
B. Lafferty wrote:
> Non-lawyers, such as you, really do make stupid remarks about legal topics.
> Whatever.
"Sore loser". --D-y
B. Lafferty
<aco...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1161285368.1...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I'm not sure what this has to do with me, but:
1) I don't believe that Ed has accurate data on Armstrong's exact mass
at all time points for which he has, e.g., VO2max data;
I'll be there's a lot Ed doesn't know about his subject. Maybe he should
put a call in to Ferrari?
-----------------------------------------------
2) even if he wasn't any lighter at the start of each Tour than he was
pre-cancer, and even if his VO2max didn't increase, it would still be
possible for his performance power to increase, as a result of A) an
increase in LT relative to VO2max, and/or B) an improvement in cycling
efficiency.
To what extent professor, in relation to the wattages put out by Armstrong
climbing in the the Tour?
-----------------------------------------------------
Indeed, it would be very surprising if such changes did not
occur
Of course they occurred, so much so that the pig was able to fly all by
itself--naturally.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
, and finally;
3) if Ashenden draws his conclusion based simply on the data presented
in the above quotes (and he himself is not being misquoted), then I'd
say that it's a good thing he left academia for other endeavors, as his
critical thinking skills appear suspect.
I think it's a pretty safe bet that he had a good amount of data to look at
prior to his testimony. Assuming that it's accurate that Armstrong had a
VO2max of 71.5 before the 1999 Tour (I'd like more data on this), how would
you have prepared him to confront a doper like Pantani in the mountains?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Coggan
aco...@earthlink.net
> <aco...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1161285368.1...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> 2) even if he wasn't any lighter at the start of each Tour than he was
> pre-cancer, and even if his VO2max didn't increase, it would still be
> possible for his performance power to increase, as a result of A) an
> increase in LT relative to VO2max, and/or B) an improvement in cycling
> efficiency.
>
> To what extent professor, in relation to the wattages put out by Armstrong
> climbing in the the Tour?
As we've been over before, to a large enough extent that you can't view
Armstrong's performances as proof of doping.
> Assuming that it's accurate that Armstrong had a
> VO2max of 71.5 before the 1999 Tour (I'd like more data on this)
I'm not sure where this value comes from, but it can't be accurate.
Even in his cancer-debilitated, detrained state, Armstrong's VO2max was
in the mid-60's, and he was repeatedly measured as having a VO2max in
the low 80's (at altitude, yet) at the OTC long before he became a Tour
contender. For example, I believe his VO2max was stated as being 83
mL/min/kg in an article that appeared in Scientific American prior to
the 1996 Atlanta Olympics.
>, how would
> you have prepared him to confront a doper like Pantani in the mountains?
Well for one thing, I would have had him deliberately lose as much
weight as he possibly could w/o getting sick/compromising his
performance, as it is clear that he is naturally too stocky/muscular to
be great in the mountains unless he did so.
Andy Coggan
B. Lafferty
<aco...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1161289115....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> <aco...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:1161285368.1...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>> 2) even if he wasn't any lighter at the start of each Tour than he was
>> pre-cancer, and even if his VO2max didn't increase, it would still be
>> possible for his performance power to increase, as a result of A) an
>> increase in LT relative to VO2max, and/or B) an improvement in cycling
>> efficiency.
>>
>> To what extent professor, in relation to the wattages put out by
>> Armstrong
>> climbing in the the Tour?
>
> As we've been over before, to a large enough extent that you can't view
> Armstrong's performances as proof of doping.
Right.
>
>> Assuming that it's accurate that Armstrong had a
>> VO2max of 71.5 before the 1999 Tour (I'd like more data on this)
>
> I'm not sure where this value comes from, but it can't be accurate.
> Even in his cancer-debilitated, detrained state, Armstrong's VO2max was
> in the mid-60's, and he was repeatedly measured as having a VO2max in
> the low 80's (at altitude, yet) at the OTC long before he became a Tour
> contender. For example, I believe his VO2max was stated as being 83
> mL/min/kg in an article that appeared in Scientific American prior to
> the 1996 Atlanta Olympics.
Armstrong's web site in the past few years has variously listed his VO2 as
82/83 or so. We'll have to see where the 71.5 figure comes from. It could
well be accurate, particularly as his VO2 was in the 60s according to you
just a short time before. His return to the peloton was initially not
stellar. One wonders whether or not there was in fact damage to his lungs
from either the cancer itself or some of the chemo.
>
>>, how would
>> you have prepared him to confront a doper like Pantani in the mountains?
>
> Well for one thing, I would have had him deliberately lose as much
> weight as he possibly could w/o getting sick/compromising his
> performance, as it is clear that he is naturally too stocky/muscular to
> be great in the mountains unless he did so.
And we now know from Armstrong's testimony that he lost a kilo, not the 7
or 8 kilos that has been the stock myth for public consumption coming from
Armstrong and his camp. A 2.2 lb loss is markedly different from 15-20lbs.
>
> Andy Coggan
>
aco...@earthlink.net
> And we now know from Armstrong's testimony that he lost a kilo, not the 7
> or 8 kilos
No, we don't know that, because we don't know at what mass Armstrong
was before he got down to 74 kg and change.
So let's see: 83 mL/min/kg x 74 kg = a VO2max of 6.14 L/min. That's
essentially identical to Chris Boardman's VO2max, yet Boardman's race
weight was only 68-69 kg. Are you now going to argue that Boardman was
also a doper? How about Obree (VO2max = 88 mL/min/kg, mass similar to
Boardman's)?
Andy Coggan
Fred Fredburger
> <amit....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1161282695.0...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> <amit....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1161221926.8...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>
>>> Conclusion de Michael Ashenden : "Aucun doute possible : il a utilisé
>>> des
>>> produits dopants à un moment donné."
>> DUMBASS,
>>
>> THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE OF DOPING.
>>
>> Incorrect. It is circumstantial evidence. The weight of circumstantial
>> evidence of doping continues to grow.
>
> dumbass,
>
> nothing in this line of "analysis" -- based on physical parameters and
> crude calculations -- connects LANCE to drugs.
>
> if you tried to present this as "circumstantial evidence", the other
> side would strip you naked,
>
> the best circumstantial evidence against lance is from swart and from
> potentially other teamates (like the andreu vaughters IMs).
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Beleive in any fantasy you like such as Armstong and USPS being a clean
> team.
And that is quite clearly NOT what was said.
Believe in any fantasy you like such as anyone disagreeing with you
being guilty of cannibalism.
Michael Press
<IZPZg.9335$Lv3....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"B. Lafferty" <Ma...@Italia.com> wrote:
You're making this up as you go along. When your
evidence is confounded you abandon rational argument
and say "He's guilty because everybody knows they were
all doping all along."
--
Michael Press
B. Lafferty
"Michael Press" <ja...@abc.net> wrote in message
news:jack-2A360E.1...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
Bullshit.
> and say "He's guilty because everybody knows they were
> all doping all along."
Show me where I ever wrote that, Chump. You can't.
>
> --
> Michael Press
B. Lafferty
"Fred Fredburger" <Sp...@spambot.com> wrote in message
news:ctudnbLKoN7Tn6XY...@comcast.com...
Yada, yada, yada.
>
> Believe in any fantasy you like such as anyone disagreeing with you being
> guilty of cannibalism.
ROTFL!
B. Lafferty
<aco...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1161294108....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>
>> And we now know from Armstrong's testimony that he lost a kilo, not the
>> 7
>> or 8 kilos
>
> No, we don't know that, because we don't know at what mass Armstrong
> was before he got down to 74 kg and change.
Keep dancing, Andy. Lets talk about weight. It's quite clear now that
Armstrong and his minions were misrepresenting how much weight he lost
post-cancer.
>
> So let's see: 83 mL/min/kg x 74 kg = a VO2max of 6.14 L/min. That's
> essentially identical to Chris Boardman's VO2max, yet Boardman's race
> weight was only 68-69 kg. Are you now going to argue that Boardman was
> also a doper? How about Obree (VO2max = 88 mL/min/kg, mass similar to
> Boardman's)?
And how did Boardman do climbing in the Tour?
>
> Andy Coggan
>
Dan Connelly
]
> And we now know from Armstrong's testimony that he lost a kilo, not the 7
> or 8 kilos that has been the stock myth for public consumption coming from
> Armstrong and his camp.
I weigh myself many mornings, pretty much first thing. Wed AM I was 125.3.
This morning I was 128.0. I'll probably be 125 and change again within
a few days. One kilo is essentially nothing -- a liter of water. Armstrong's
loss was a lot more than that.
Dan
B. Lafferty
"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
news:qYTZg.1178$T_1...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
Let us know when your weight varies by 15 to 20 lbs in one day.
Michael Press
<DNTZg.11701$Y24....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Up there in the comment to which I replied.
> >> Beleive in any fantasy you like such as Armstong and USPS being a clean
> >> team. Ooops.....not all of them were clean according to rider
> >> admissions.
I believe that's `believe'.
--
Michael Press
dusto...@mac.com
B. Lafferty wrote:
> Lets talk about weight. It's quite clear now that
> Armstrong and his minions were misrepresenting how much weight he lost
> post-cancer.
How much do you say they say, Brian? Something around 20 lbs?
How much do you say? That is, what do you think was the weight he raced
at (generally, of course) before cancer, and what did he bottom out at
post cancer? What was the difference, according to what you believe?
Maybe later we can backtrack on this thread and you can explain how SCA
didn't lose that $7.5 million in arbitration, $2.5 million more than if
they had just paid up-- that they didn't see the writing on the wall,
and bail, thinking to have done the most damage they could without
having to pay another million or three. Or why did they bail, again?
--D-y
Donald Munro
>>> And we now know from Armstrong's testimony that he lost a kilo, not the
>>> 7 or 8 kilos
Andy Coggan wrote:
>> So let's see: 83 mL/min/kg x 74 kg = a VO2max of 6.14 L/min. That's
>> essentially identical to Chris Boardman's VO2max, yet Boardman's race
>> weight was only 68-69 kg. Are you now going to argue that Boardman was
>> also a doper?
B. Lafferty wrote:
> And how did Boardman do climbing in the Tour?
Coming soon:
Lafferty vs Coggan rbr deathmatch.
Format: ITT or boxing match
Date: To be decided
Admission price: 1 Cadbury slab
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> Andy Coggan wrote:
>>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>
> Coming soon:
> Lafferty vs Coggan rbr deathmatch.
> Format: ITT or boxing match
> Date: To be decided
> Admission price: 1 Cadbury slab
No no no. The Lafferty vs Coggan deathmatch will be run at
the next Low-Key Hillclimb, but instead of climbing the hill,
they will duke it out by attempting to guess Dan Connelly's
weight. (Like one of those guess-how-many-jellybeans
contests.) As a tie breaker, they will use his weight and HCT
to predict his Old La Honda time. Admission will still be one
Cadbury bar/person, and all proceeds will be donated to
a charity, namely Dan Connelly (who needs some fattening
up to qualify to post in rbr).
Ben
Event Promoter
mil...@gmail.com
Andy,
On a related topic, do you have any data on Lemond? I always wondered
why all those doped up pro's who spent hours in wind tunnels on much
more aerodynmaically advanced bikes could never pick off his Tour TT
record. He seems to be the king of circumstantial evidence and I always
found it kind of funny that he never saw the hipocrasy.
wsc...@udel.edu
> why all those doped up pro's who spent hours in wind tunnels on much
> more aerodynmaically advanced bikes could never pick off his Tour TT
> record. He seems to be the king of circumstantial evidence and I always
> found it kind of funny that he never saw the hipocrasy.
Didn't he have a big tail-wind on a point-to-point course?
I'm pretty sure Verbrugghe held or even still holds the prologue speed
record b/c of an uncomplicated point-to-point parcours and a big tail
wind.
aco...@earthlink.net
> <aco...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1161294108....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> > B. Lafferty wrote:
> >
> >> And we now know from Armstrong's testimony that he lost a kilo, not the
> >> 7
> >> or 8 kilos
> >
> > No, we don't know that, because we don't know at what mass Armstrong
> > was before he got down to 74 kg and change.
>
> Keep dancing, Andy. Lets talk about weight. It's quite clear now that
> Armstrong and his minions were misrepresenting how much weight he lost
> post-cancer.
And that matters because...?
> > So let's see: 83 mL/min/kg x 74 kg = a VO2max of 6.14 L/min. That's
> > essentially identical to Chris Boardman's VO2max, yet Boardman's race
> > weight was only 68-69 kg. Are you now going to argue that Boardman was
> > also a doper? How about Obree (VO2max = 88 mL/min/kg, mass similar to
> > Boardman's)?
>
> And how did Boardman do climbing in the Tour?
How well did Armstrong perform in the pursuit, or for that matter, the
hour record? The answer is that he never even attempted them, because
he knew that even the hour might be beyond his reach. IOW, there are
horses for courses, and simply having a high VO2max doesn't guarantee
anything.
Andy Coggan
aco...@earthlink.net
> do you have any data on Lemond?
Nope. The closest I've been to Lemond is racing against him (quite
unsuccessfully, as you can imagine...then again, I'm not the only one
who might say that!) at the 1977 Junior World team trials in/around
Princeton, NJ, and the 1980 Olympic Trials in west central Ohio.
Andy Coggan
Bob Schwartz
> I always wondered
>> why all those doped up pro's who spent hours in wind tunnels on much
>> more aerodynmaically advanced bikes could never pick off his Tour TT
>> record. He seems to be the king of circumstantial evidence and I always
>> found it kind of funny that he never saw the hipocrasy.
>
> Didn't he have a big tail-wind on a point-to-point course?
Don't forget the slight downhill.
> I'm pretty sure Verbrugghe held or even still holds the prologue speed
> record b/c of an uncomplicated point-to-point parcours and a big tail
> wind.
55 X 11
http://au.cyclingnews.com/results/2001/giro01/results/prologue.shtml
Bob Schwartz
B. Lafferty
<aco...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1161357262.6...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> <aco...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:1161294108....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> > B. Lafferty wrote:
>> >
>> >> And we now know from Armstrong's testimony that he lost a kilo, not
>> >> the
>> >> 7
>> >> or 8 kilos
>> >
>> > No, we don't know that, because we don't know at what mass Armstrong
>> > was before he got down to 74 kg and change.
>>
>> Keep dancing, Andy. Lets talk about weight. It's quite clear now that
>> Armstrong and his minions were misrepresenting how much weight he lost
>> post-cancer.
>
> And that matters because...?
Why do you think Armstong and his camp keep repeating the false weight
mantra year after year.
>
>> > So let's see: 83 mL/min/kg x 74 kg = a VO2max of 6.14 L/min. That's
>> > essentially identical to Chris Boardman's VO2max, yet Boardman's race
>> > weight was only 68-69 kg. Are you now going to argue that Boardman was
>> > also a doper? How about Obree (VO2max = 88 mL/min/kg, mass similar to
>> > Boardman's)?
>>
>> And how did Boardman do climbing in the Tour?
>
> How well did Armstrong perform in the pursuit, or for that matter, the
> hour record?
So you really don't know the answer to your strawman and never will.
..The answer is that he never even attempted them, because
> he knew that even the hour might be beyond his reach.
Is that why he never attempted the Hour? Cite please, or are you just
speculating?
. IOW, there are
> horses for courses, and simply having a high VO2max doesn't guarantee
> anything.
But without a high VO2max you'll never be a great climber at 74 kilos. Now
define high for us in this context.
>
> Andy Coggan
>
Cyclonaught
<mil...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161354730.2...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
a VO2 as high as 96, but mostly, I've seen him reported to be in the upper
80s.
http://www.runnersweb.com/running/vo2_js.html
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
aco...@earthlink.net
> <aco...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1161357262.6...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > B. Lafferty wrote:
> >> <aco...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> news:1161294108....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> >> > B. Lafferty wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> And we now know from Armstrong's testimony that he lost a kilo, not
> >> >> the
> >> >> 7
> >> >> or 8 kilos
> >> >
> >> > No, we don't know that, because we don't know at what mass Armstrong
> >> > was before he got down to 74 kg and change.
> >>
> >> Keep dancing, Andy. Lets talk about weight. It's quite clear now that
> >> Armstrong and his minions were misrepresenting how much weight he lost
> >> post-cancer.
> >
> > And that matters because...?
>
> Why do you think Armstong and his camp keep repeating the false weight
> mantra year after year.
Objection, your honor: assuming facts not in evidence. ;-)
We don't know that it's a "false mantra", since we don't really know
what Armstrong weighed when, e.g., he won Worlds in his pre-cancer
days. But even if you accept that wasn't much heavier than the 74 kg
that he stated under oath was his Tour-winning weight, there are
alternative explanations as to why he would exaggerate how much weight
he lost/how strict he was about controlling his energy intake.
Remember, this is a guy who was very much into playing head games.
> >> > So let's see: 83 mL/min/kg x 74 kg = a VO2max of 6.14 L/min. That's
> >> > essentially identical to Chris Boardman's VO2max, yet Boardman's race
> >> > weight was only 68-69 kg. Are you now going to argue that Boardman was
> >> > also a doper? How about Obree (VO2max = 88 mL/min/kg, mass similar to
> >> > Boardman's)?
> >>
> >> And how did Boardman do climbing in the Tour?
> >
> > How well did Armstrong perform in the pursuit, or for that matter, the
> > hour record?
>
> So you really don't know the answer to your strawman and never will.
My question to you was really rhetorical in nature.
(Oh, and BTW: Boardman was British hillclimb champion early in his
career, and acquitted himself reasonably well in a few mountainous TdF
stages...he just couldn't keep it up day-after-day-after-day.)
> ..The answer is that he never even attempted them, because
> > he knew that even the hour might be beyond his reach.
>
> Is that why he never attempted the Hour? Cite please, or are you just
> speculating?
Armstrong seriously considered attempting the hour, or at least
seriously enough to put together a whole "Formula 1" team for the
effort. After conducting some wind tunnel tests in San Diego, though,
he bagged the idea...and in the audio of some Discovery Channel
coverage someone can be overheard basically telling him "you can't do
it".
Pics of Armstrong's trip to the San Diego wind tunnel can be found
here:
http://www.trainright.com/galleries.asp?action=display&record=11
> . IOW, there are
> > horses for courses, and simply having a high VO2max doesn't guarantee
> > anything.
>
> But without a high VO2max you'll never be a great climber at 74 kilos. Now
> define high for us in this context.
I don't know how high is high enough, but clearly Armstrong's VO2max
was adequate.
Andy Coggan
Fred Fredburger
Didn't your mother teach you not to laugh when you have your mouth full?
dusto...@mac.com
aco...@earthlink.net wrote:
(B. Lafferty wrote):
> > Why do you think Armstong and his camp keep repeating the false weight
> > mantra year after year.
(AC reply):
> Objection, your honor: assuming facts not in evidence. ;-)
> We don't know that it's a "false mantra", since we don't really know
> what Armstrong weighed when, e.g., he won Worlds in his pre-cancer
> days. But even if you accept that wasn't much heavier than the 74 kg
> that he stated under oath was his Tour-winning weight, there are
> alternative explanations as to why he would exaggerate how much weight
> he lost/how strict he was about controlling his energy intake.
> Remember, this is a guy who was very much into playing head games.
I haven't seen Brian's representation of the false mantra recently--
what LA weighed, when.
I asked, but he ignored me. I think it's because he's peeved that Lance
won the day in the CYA insurance arbitration case, even after a parade
of testimony that should (so to speak) have won the hearts and minds of
the arb panel didn't seem to do the trick.
I think there are some good numbers out there somewhere, that someone
could report. --D-y
B. Lafferty
<aco...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1161376588....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Overruled. Objection noted for the record.
>
>> >> > So let's see: 83 mL/min/kg x 74 kg = a VO2max of 6.14 L/min. That's
>> >> > essentially identical to Chris Boardman's VO2max, yet Boardman's
>> >> > race
>> >> > weight was only 68-69 kg. Are you now going to argue that Boardman
>> >> > was
>> >> > also a doper? How about Obree (VO2max = 88 mL/min/kg, mass similar
>> >> > to
>> >> > Boardman's)?
>> >>
>> >> And how did Boardman do climbing in the Tour?
>> >
>> > How well did Armstrong perform in the pursuit, or for that matter, the
>> > hour record?
>>
>> So you really don't know the answer to your strawman and never will.
>
> My question to you was really rhetorical in nature.
>
> (Oh, and BTW: Boardman was British hillclimb champion early in his
> career, and acquitted himself reasonably well in a few mountainous TdF
> stages...he just couldn't keep it up day-after-day-after-day.)
It was a good deal worse than his not being able to keep it up day after
day. But if he had used epo or blood doped he may well have flown like a
bird. Brit hill climbs are oranges to the Tour's apples.
>
>> ..The answer is that he never even attempted them, because
>> > he knew that even the hour might be beyond his reach.
>>
>> Is that why he never attempted the Hour? Cite please, or are you just
>> speculating?
>
> Armstrong seriously considered attempting the hour, or at least
> seriously enough to put together a whole "Formula 1" team for the
> effort.
I was aware of that.
>.After conducting some wind tunnel tests in San Diego, though,
> he bagged the idea...and in the audio of some Discovery Channel
> coverage someone can be overheard basically telling him "you can't do
> it".
Had not heard of that. Interesting.
>
> Pics of Armstrong's trip to the San Diego wind tunnel can be found
> here:
>
> http://www.trainright.com/galleries.asp?action=display&record=11
>
>> . IOW, there are
>> > horses for courses, and simply having a high VO2max doesn't guarantee
>> > anything.
>>
>> But without a high VO2max you'll never be a great climber at 74 kilos.
>> Now
>> define high for us in this context.
>
> I don't know how high is high enough, but clearly Armstrong's VO2max
> was adequate.
And how much, by percentage, do you estimate a regimen of epo, autologus
blood doping, hgh and testosterone could raise VO2max?
>
> Andy Coggan
>
B. Lafferty
<dusto...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1161382846.6...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I haven't seen Brian's representation of the false mantra recently--
> what LA weighed, when.
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3242,36-824775@51-789918,0.html
You can also get Tour rider weight from Tour records. Ask Benjo where they
can be found.
>
> I asked, but he ignored me. I think it's because he's peeved that Lance
> won the day in the CYA insurance arbitration case, even after a parade
> of testimony that should (so to speak) have won the hearts and minds of
> the arb panel didn't seem to do the trick.
I could not care less about what Armstrong settled for (not won as there was
no decision by the arbitors). The testimony that is coming out is far more
interesting and damaging to Armstrong and the minions living off Sir Lance's
teat.
Michael Press
<dFd_g.14035$o71....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
,
"B. Lafferty" <Ma...@Italia.com> wrote:
The first step is to admit you have a problem.
--
Michael Press
Phil Holman
<dusto...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1161286275.4...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> Non-lawyers, such as you, really do make stupid remarks about legal
>> topics.
>> Whatever.
>
> "Sore loser". --D-y
Console yourself; non-technical people such as BL make really stupid
inferences from data they don't really understand. BL has been harping
on about this one for quite a while but he's too thick to get it.
Phil H
aco...@earthlink.net
> And how much, by percentage, do you estimate a regimen of epo, autologus
> blood doping, hgh and testosterone could raise VO2max?
Growth hormone and testoterone would do nothing to increase your
VO2max. OTOH, use of EPO or blood doping would result is a significant
boost, the magnitude of which would depend on your initial hematocrit.
For example, someone whose natural hematocrit when training was 45%
would probably only experience a ~5% increase in VO2max, assuming that
they took their hematocrit all the way up to the UCI limit.
Andy Coggan
Howard Kveck
aco...@earthlink.net wrote:
> (Oh, and BTW: Boardman was British hillclimb champion early in his
> career, and acquitted himself reasonably well in a few mountainous TdF
> stages...he just couldn't keep it up day-after-day-after-day.)
I was under the impression that most Brit hill climbs are fairly short, as in:
far less than the typical Alpine climb. I imagine Simon can give some details.
Beyond that, it always seemed like Boardman was very uncomfortable in the peloton.
Being nervous takes energy (or it sure seems to), so I think that was another factor
in his inability to pull it off day to day in a big GT. He was pretty hit-or-miss in
the climbing stages he rode.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Kurgan Gringioni
Michael Press wrote:
>
> The first step is to admit you have a problem.
Dumbass -
He doesn't want to be helped, but it is nice of you to try.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
B. Lafferty
<aco...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1161395991.0...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
And as we know, riders and their doctors are adept at lowering the reading
for the vampires. So, if they take it to 55% to 60% we would see perhaps a
10% to 12% (?) increase getting the rider into the 91+ VOmax range. Voila,
pigs can fly.
While the hgh and testosterone wouldn't raise VOmax, they would aid in other
aspects of physiology allowing for greater training, better recovery and
the development of greater efficiency. Hence, a pig with afterburners.
>
> Andy Coggan
>
Mark
aco...@earthlink.net wrote:
> Nope. The closest I've been to Lemond is racing against him (quite
> unsuccessfully
Don't fret. I lined up against Knickman once in my junior years. That
was the last we saw of him until he came around and lapped the field.
Similar experiences as a young adult (years ago...) convinced me that
bicycle racing is a nice hobby with fitness benifits and cool gear.
My question, for Andy or anyone else that may know:
Has anyone conducted any sort of blinded "doping" scheme studies? In
the drug discovery business the effect of placebo on very ill patients
can be quite astounding. It wouldn't surprise me if the major effect of
many doping regimens, while certainly impacting physiology, had mental
effects that were more impactful to performance than the physical
"benifits". There would be ethical issues in doing these studies in
NHVs of course.
I'm not suggesting riders don't use baned products, simply that the
physical effects could be overstated and that the mental component
could be the larger factor in play. Much like a 50 gram savings in
wheel weight doesn't really matter. But even knowing that I still felt
faster on my race wheels.
Mark
dusto...@mac.com
B. Lafferty wrote:
> I could not care less about what Armstrong settled for (not won as there was
> no decision by the arbitors). The testimony that is coming out is far more
> interesting and damaging to Armstrong and the minions living off Sir Lance's
> teat.
CYA started a fight and Armstrong won.
The "damage", which amounted to an expensive English translation of Rip
Van Walsh/R.I.P. Ballestre's "we can't publish this here" book with the
stolen title (royalty, lawsuits? Since it wasn't a parody?), and a star
witness with negative credibility and very, very poor coaching.
You care a lot about everything "Lance", since Lance is at the center
of nearly everything you post in your many entries.
You could go to NY and heckle him. Just a thought. --D-y
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Hmmm...what's a placebo going to do to hematocrit?
I'm not entirely kidding--years ago I went to a lecture on clinical
hypnosis by an oral surgeon/hypnotist (Kay Thompson) who when doing an
extraction told patients they would bleed until the sockets were full,
and then they would stop--allegedly they did. She also tried a stunt on
her students (not us). She would pinch a fold of flesh on the back of
the subjects hand and send a needle through it. She would then announce
that when the needle was removed, the subject would bleed through the
left (but not the right) hole. Then she would give the command to
switch the bleeding holes, and the subject could do that on command.
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
B. Lafferty
<dusto...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1161442546.3...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> I could not care less about what Armstrong settled for (not won as there
>> was
>> no decision by the arbitors). The testimony that is coming out is far
>> more
>> interesting and damaging to Armstrong and the minions living off Sir
>> Lance's
>> teat.
ROTFL
>
> CYA started a fight and Armstrong won.
Wrong
>
> The "damage", which amounted to an expensive English translation of Rip
> Van Walsh/R.I.P. Ballestre's "we can't publish this here" book with the
> stolen title (royalty, lawsuits? Since it wasn't a parody?), and a star
> witness with negative credibility and very, very poor coaching.
Cite substantating your claim?
>
> You care a lot about everything "Lance", since Lance is at the center
> of nearly everything you post in your many entries.
I love seeing the famously arrogant take the fall.
>
> You could go to NY and heckle him. Just a thought.
I have far better things to do with my time and money. The time spent here
jerking the Lance tifosi's chains is minimal and good for its amusement
value. You in particular are quite enteraining.
--D-y
>
Fred Fredburger
> <dusto...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:1161382846.6...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> I haven't seen Brian's representation of the false mantra recently--
>> what LA weighed, when.
>
> http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3242,36-824775@51-789918,0.html
> You can also get Tour rider weight from Tour records. Ask Benjo where they
> can be found.
>
>> I asked, but he ignored me. I think it's because he's peeved that Lance
>> won the day in the CYA insurance arbitration case, even after a parade
>> of testimony that should (so to speak) have won the hearts and minds of
>> the arb panel didn't seem to do the trick.
>
> I could not care less about what Armstrong settled for (not won as there was
> no decision by the arbitors).
Right. It was the insurance co. that made the decision against themselves.
dusto...@mac.com
B. Lafferty wrote:
> > CYA started a fight and Armstrong won.
>
> Wrong
Lance got the money, plus. This is not a win because...? Negative
publicity? CYA took it on the chin on that score IMHO. Not paying the
money in the first place, the rehash, the Betsy, then bailing.
People have been saying "things" about Lance long before and will
continue long after (it's been most of a year, already). Well, maybe
"Officiel" will have a revalation beyond what's been shown here or on
Yahoo Sports (Reuters, etc.) So far, someone working on hearsay is what
it looks like to me.
> Cite substantating your claim?
Any source showing the amount CYA forked over.
> I love seeing the famously arrogant take the fall.
You spend a lot of time chopping, that's for sure. So far, no fall.
> I have far better things to do with my time and money. The time spent here
> jerking the Lance tifosi's chains is minimal and good for its amusement
> value. You in particular are quite enteraining.
I knew what you meant by "enteraining". And I thank you, in turn.
So, what about the weight thing? How about a nice, concise statement in
your own words showing your take on this issue? The link you posted
earlier was insubstantial. --D-y
B. Lafferty
"Fred Fredburger" <FredFre...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote in message
news:3amdnXIhqdNjFqfY...@comcast.com...
"Against themselves" is a mischaracterization that only comes from ignorant
morons such as yourself. The insurance company made a business decision
based on the arbitrator declaring that SCA was an insurer under its contract
and therefore liable for triple damages. Had the arbitrator decided that
SCA was not an insurer, I suspect SCA would have gone for a decision from
the arbitration panel as they would not have had to pay more than what the
settlement actually was. As it is, the arbitration panel decided nothing.
B. Lafferty
<dusto...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1161465162.8...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> > CYA started a fight and Armstrong won.
>>
>> Wrong
>
> Lance got the money, plus. This is not a win because...? Negative
> publicity? CYA took it on the chin on that score IMHO. Not paying the
> money in the first place, the rehash, the Betsy, then bailing.
It's not a win because....see my post in response to Moron Fredburger. BTW,
it's SCA.
>
> People have been saying "things" about Lance long before and will
> continue long after (it's been most of a year, already). Well, maybe
> "Officiel" will have a revalation beyond what's been shown here or on
> Yahoo Sports (Reuters, etc.) So far, someone working on hearsay is what
> it looks like to me.
I'll let you know after reading the book. My cycling buddy should be in
Paris on business next month and will bring it back..
>
>> Cite substantating your claim?
>
> Any source showing the amount CYA forked over.
Wrong again--see Fredburger as above.
>
>> I love seeing the famously arrogant take the fall.
>
> You spend a lot of time chopping, that's for sure. So far, no fall.
The fall is in progress. When people at my health club say, as they have
been, that Lance is another doper, just slicker than the rest, you know his
stock with the general public is on the down slide. As time goes by and
more ex-associates talk, it will be even more fun than it is at present.
>
>> I have far better things to do with my time and money. The time spent
>> here
>> jerking the Lance tifosi's chains is minimal and good for its amusement
>> value. You in particular are quite enteraining.
>
> I knew what you meant by "enteraining". And I thank you, in turn.
>
> So, what about the weight thing? How about a nice, concise statement in
> your own words showing your take on this issue? The link you posted
> earlier was insubstantial. --D-y
Use your browser on this thread and you will find most, if not all, of what
you seek.
>
Bill C
McLane Pacific Cycling Classic cancelled for 2007
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/oct06/oct21news
The event started 14 years ago as a fundraiser for the United Way and
over the years has donated well over $100,000 to the charity said the
promoter. With that goal in mind, the event committee scurried to fill
the gap between what McLane Pacific had offered each year and what was
needed.
USAC KILLED an event that gave 100G to charity, dumped Gerard and
replaced him with a GOB hack and people here are still pushing even
harder to kill the sport.
I don't see most of those raising hell offering options for healthy
cycling, just bitching up a storm. "Easy to bitch, Hard to fix!" to
paraphrase a famous Kenny Stabler line. and it seems that the most
vocal are happy to bitch but not putting up in the fight to fix.
There's some stupid shit being floated for rules changes this year and
I haven't even seen a mention here yet, let alone a fight.
Americans today, in general, and bike racers in particular are gutless
in fighting for what's right.
Both get what they deserve, a clusterfuck from both the USAC,
Washington, and the Wolrd which says "Fuck You and everything you
belive in!!" and we do nothing effective.
That's the Democrats platform by the way. They would still be waiting
for the Taleban, Syria, and Iran to arrest the Islamic nutjobs who
blasted NYC and turn them over to the UN for prosecution as several
more attacks went off while they were waiting for the UN to solve the
problem.
The world is following the Democrat's plan in Sudan and Tibet. Sudan
is Hitler light, and the core of Tibet's culture is projected to be
totally extinguished in the next 50 years.
Hand wringing and whining while people die is gutless, and that
applies to excusing outrages by our government, the UN, USAC, UCI, and
WADA.
If you aren't taking an active stance then you are a collaborator and
need to STFU!
WADA makes the US secret prison system look objective.
Criminal scumbags are empowered by those who don't give a shit.
Bill C
On Oct 21, 7:30 am, "B. Lafferty" <M...@Italia.com> wrote:
> <acog...@earthlink.net> wrote in messagenews:1161395991.0...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > B. Lafferty wrote:
>
> >> And how much, by percentage, do you estimate a regimen of epo, autologus
> >> blood doping, hgh and testosterone could raise VO2max?
>
> > Growth hormone and testoterone would do nothing to increase your
> > VO2max. OTOH, use of EPO or blood doping would result is a significant
> > boost, the magnitude of which would depend on your initial hematocrit.
> > For example, someone whose natural hematocrit when training was 45%
> > would probably only experience a ~5% increase in VO2max, assuming that
> > they took their hematocrit all the way up to the UCI limit.And as we know, riders and their doctors are adept at lowering the reading
> for the vampires. So, if they take it to 55% to 60% we would see perhaps a
> 10% to 12% (?) increase getting the rider into the 91+ VOmax range. Voila,
> pigs can fly.
> While the hgh and testosterone wouldn't raise VOmax, they would aid in other
> aspects of physiology allowing for greater training, better recovery and
> the development of greater efficiency. Hence, a pig with afterburners.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Andy Coggan- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
B. Lafferty
"Bill C" <trito...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1161467902.6...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Ah, ok. So which party favors athletic use of hgh? ;-)
amit....@gmail.com
dumbass,
get a grip.
> Hand wringing and whining while people die is gutless,
ironic, you're the biggest hand-wringer and whiner i can think of.
Mark
> Hmmm...what's a placebo going to do to hematocrit?
Not much of course and I'm certainly not suggesting that drugs don't
have a measurable effect on physiology. My postulate is that simply
telling a rider that they went from a crit of say 45 to 50 (or perhaps
that they are sleeping with a new magic patch on their privates) might
produce a better result than actually going from 45 to 50.
We do know that the CNS exerts a tremendous influence on physiology and
belief that one has an ability to perform is critical. How often have
we seen athletes with the natural talent (physical ability) fail to get
top results? Further, since a vast number of elite athletes are
presumed head cases, I'd wager the psychologic impact of many doping
regimens is often more important than actual physiologic results.
This is testable in a fixed setting using cross over designs. But would
perhaps be difficult to do for ethical reasons with healthy volunteers.
Not my field but some of the human performance types may have looked at
this in detail.
Mark
dusto...@mac.com
B. Lafferty wrote:
> It's not a win because....see my post in response to Moron Fredburger. BTW,
> it's SCA.
I saw your response to the person you mischaracterize. Indeed, the arb.
board deciding an insurance company was an insurance company (what did
CYA expect???, one could ask <g>), then it was time to bail before they
had to pay 15 million dollars instead of the $5 million. Phew, good
choice!
The "CYA" is ironic. SCA showing their buttocks to the world the way
they did and all..
> I'll let you know [content, if any, of Officiel] after reading the book. My cycling buddy should be in
> Paris on business next month and will bring it back..
You're not excited enough to use www.amazon.fr?
> [Lance v. SCA] Wrong again--see Fredburger as above.
SCA caved before they had to pay a really big sum.
> The fall is in progress. When people at my health club say, as they have
> been, that Lance is another doper, just slicker than the rest, you know his
> stock with the general public is on the down slide. As time goes by and
> more ex-associates talk, it will be even more fun than it is at present.
People at your health club share your obsession? So this is not a
mental health club, I take it?
(I asked Brian to state his take on the "weight question" with
Armstrong, giving weights and dates)
> Use your browser on this thread and you will find most, if not all, of what
> you seek.
Gosh, I've read this thread and it's just not there, Brian. The link
you posted, as I've said, had little or no substance and certainly no
comprehensive tracking of Lance's weight.
Come on, it will only take a few moments and then we can see in plain
view what you find so conclusive IRT Lance's body weight proving he
doped. You might even convince *me*. Think about it... --D-y
John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
>Scorched earth and hubris.
>
>McLane Pacific Cycling Classic cancelled for 2007
>
>http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/oct06/oct21news
>
>The event started 14 years ago as a fundraiser for the United Way and
>over the years has donated well over $100,000 to the charity said the
>promoter. With that goal in mind, the event committee scurried to fill
>the gap between what McLane Pacific had offered each year and what was
>needed.
>
>USAC KILLED an event that gave 100G to charity, dumped Gerard and
>replaced him with a GOB hack and people here are still pushing even
>harder to kill the sport.
Oh that's bad -- from the cyclingnews article "The race will cease
because it cannot increase its operating budget to meet the recently
revised NRC guidelines from the American cycling federation."
Great, just great.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
Bill C
On Oct 21, 7:04 pm, amit.gh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Hand wringing and whining while people die is gutless,ironic, you're the biggest hand-wringer and whiner i can think of.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Yo gutless one. I served my time looking across the Czech border at
Soviet tank divisions who had crushed the Czech people who had the sick
ass idea that freedom was a good thing.
You trot your gutless ass to Afghanistan and support those people in
freedom form having women stoned, Bhuddas destroyed, aid workers
murdered, reporters forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint, etc... then
we'll talk.
Bill C
Howard Kveck
"B. Lafferty" <Ma...@Italia.com> wrote:
> I have far better things to do with my time and money. The time spent here
> jerking the Lance tifosi's chains is minimal and good for its amusement
> value.
You know, Brian, there is the possibility that some people are yanking your chain
when it comes to LANCE... It apparently doesn't take much.
Bill C
On Oct 21, 6:24 pm, "B. Lafferty" <M...@Italia.com> wrote:
> "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:1161467902.6...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Bill CAh, ok. So which party favors athletic use of hgh? ;-)
If it was made by one of the drug companies supported by the
scumpublicans then I'd say Tricky Dick Cheney was leading the charge.
>
>
It just pisse me off that a "GREAT" Democrat, JFK got us into Vietnam,
a certified mentally ill, acoholic Democrat expanded the war, and e
Republican criminal got us out of it, is a great victory for the
Democrat Progreesives despite the fact that Vietnam barely rates above
N. Korea, even now, in Human rights rankings, and the fact that we
abandoned our allies in the region allowed Pol-Pot to slaughter several
million because there was no credible opposition is considered a
victory.
After we leave Iraq, which we should have never been in, and hundreds
of thousands to millions die, because we left, I'm sure the DNC will be
declaring victory and Amit will be the head excuse maker here that
blames everyone but the Islamic extremists, and those PC limpdicks who
turned them loose, for the result.
The US/UN defended S. Korea and what we believe in. They aren't
perfect by any means but mostly free.
The Progressives got us out of SE Asia. Millions died and Vietnam is
still a hell-hole according to the Human Rights folks.
You tell me who was right?
I'd rather be die fighting fo freedom, along with my family, than
subject all of us to being under "RED" rule, like N. Korea. But Hey
"better RED than dead!!!" right.
A re-education camp is better than death any day, right Amit?
Bill C
aco...@earthlink.net
> <aco...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1161395991.0...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> > B. Lafferty wrote:
> >
> >> And how much, by percentage, do you estimate a regimen of epo, autologus
> >> blood doping, hgh and testosterone could raise VO2max?
> >
> > Growth hormone and testoterone would do nothing to increase your
> > VO2max. OTOH, use of EPO or blood doping would result is a significant
> > boost, the magnitude of which would depend on your initial hematocrit.
> > For example, someone whose natural hematocrit when training was 45%
> > would probably only experience a ~5% increase in VO2max, assuming that
> > they took their hematocrit all the way up to the UCI limit.
>
> And as we know, riders and their doctors are adept at lowering the reading
> for the vampires.
We do?
> So, if they take it to 55% to 60% we would see perhaps a
> 10% to 12% (?) increase getting the rider into the 91+ VOmax range.
See, and there's the rub: there are individuals who *haven't* used EPO
with VO2max values that high (heck, mine was around 80 mL/min/kg when I
was young, and my performance ability was still ~10% shy of that needed
to be a journeyman pro in Europe). Ergo, you can't conclude that just
because a pig flies that it must be doped.
>Voila,
> pigs can fly.
> While the hgh and testosterone wouldn't raise VOmax, they would aid in other
> aspects of physiology allowing for greater training, better recovery and
> the development of greater efficiency.
HGH and/or testosterone would do nothing for efficiency, and their
benefit as training/recovery aids is unproven.
Andy Coggan
aco...@earthlink.net
> My question, for Andy or anyone else that may know:
>
> Has anyone conducted any sort of blinded "doping" scheme studies?
I believe that the several studies of EPO conducted by the AIS were at
least single blind.
Andy Coggan
B. Lafferty
<dusto...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1161472421.2...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
B. Lafferty
"Howard Kveck" <YOURh...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
news:YOURhoward-49E43...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <eNs_g.10502$Lv3....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "B. Lafferty" <Ma...@Italia.com> wrote:
>
>> I have far better things to do with my time and money. The time spent
>> here
>> jerking the Lance tifosi's chains is minimal and good for its amusement
>> value.
>
> You know, Brian, there is the possibility that some people are yanking
> your chain
> when it comes to LANCE... It apparently doesn't take much.
:-)
B. Lafferty
"Howard Kveck" <YOURh...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
news:YOURhoward-49E43...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> "B. Lafferty" <Ma...@Italia.com> wrote:
>
>> I have far better things to do with my time and money. The time spent
>> here
>> jerking the Lance tifosi's chains is minimal and good for its amusement
>> value.
>
> You know, Brian, there is the possibility that some people are yanking
> your chain
> when it comes to LANCE... It apparently doesn't take much.
:-)
B. Lafferty
<aco...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1161480499.1...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> <aco...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:1161395991.0...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> > B. Lafferty wrote:
>> >
>> >> And how much, by percentage, do you estimate a regimen of epo,
>> >> autologus
>> >> blood doping, hgh and testosterone could raise VO2max?
>> >
>> > Growth hormone and testoterone would do nothing to increase your
>> > VO2max. OTOH, use of EPO or blood doping would result is a significant
>> > boost, the magnitude of which would depend on your initial hematocrit.
>> > For example, someone whose natural hematocrit when training was 45%
>> > would probably only experience a ~5% increase in VO2max, assuming that
>> > they took their hematocrit all the way up to the UCI limit.
>>
>> And as we know, riders and their doctors are adept at lowering the
>> reading
>> for the vampires.
>
> We do?
Several pro riders have described how it's done. Hence the call for testing
at the start line.
>
>> So, if they take it to 55% to 60% we would see perhaps a
>> 10% to 12% (?) increase getting the rider into the 91+ VOmax range.
>
> See, and there's the rub: there are individuals who *haven't* used EPO
> with VO2max values that high (heck, mine was around 80 mL/min/kg when I
> was young, and my performance ability was still ~10% shy of that needed
> to be a journeyman pro in Europe). Ergo, you can't conclude that just
> because a pig flies that it must be doped.
There are very few pro riders with natural VO2max of 90+. IIRC. Lemond had
the highest recorded VO2 of any cyclist. Wasn't Indurain's something like 88
or 89? You can conclude that certain pigs can't fly based on past
performance and their physiology. That why the French cycling federation
has been doing detailed longitudinal testing on French riders.
>
>>Voila,
>> pigs can fly.
>> While the hgh and testosterone wouldn't raise VOmax, they would aid in
>> other
>> aspects of physiology allowing for greater training, better recovery and
>> the development of greater efficiency.
>
> HGH and/or testosterone would do nothing for efficiency, and their
> benefit as training/recovery aids is unproven.
Let's pass that along to the pro peloton. I'm certain they'll beleive you
and cease their use of such products.
>
> Andy Coggan
>
Kurgan Gringioni
Bill C wrote:
> N. Korea, even now, in Human rights rankings, and the fact that we
> abandoned our allies in the region allowed Pol-Pot to slaughter several
> million because there was no credible opposition
Ignoramous -
The Vietnamese Communists were the ones who deposed Pol Pot.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
Kurgan Gringioni
Dumbass -
The Taliban was/is popular in Afghanistan because, despite their brutal
rule, they were the only group able to bring order to that country in
decades.
Ignorant Pollyanaish Westerners such as yourself don't realize there is
a reason for all the brutal regimes (Saddam included) in that region.
They are the only ones able to keep things remotely under control.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
dusto...@mac.com
B. Lafferty wrote:
> Tis a pity you lack the intelligence to be a fool.
Is that a line from someplace, or did you make it up?
That's not numbers and dates, Brian.
Try again?
How is it, when someone walks away with the money, that they have
"lost"? If you could just explain that one to me, maybe we could get
somewhere with my legal education, too.
Waiting patiently. --D-y
Donald Munro
>> The world is following the Democrat's plan in Sudan and Tibet. Sudan
>> is Hitler light, and the core of Tibet's culture is projected to be
>> totally extinguished in the next 50 years.
>> Hand wringing and whining while people die is gutless, and that
>> applies to excusing outrages by our government, the UN, USAC, UCI, and
>> WADA.
>> If you aren't taking an active stance then you are a collaborator and
>> need to STFU!
>> WADA makes the US secret prison system look objective.
>> Criminal scumbags are empowered by those who don't give a shit.
>>
B. Lafferty wrote:
> Ah, ok. So which party favors athletic use of hgh? ;-)
Lafferty on LANCE + BillC on politics = Warmup event for N hemisphere
winter posts
need more sun
ability to climb in late 98/1999 and later years was due to all the
weight he lost. That explained how a guy with no pre-cancer record in
the high mountains could come back and beat the best.
If it turns out that there was not a dramatic weight loss, well then
anyone with half a brain needs to ask two questions:
a) how did he become such a good climber
b) why did he and others claim a big change in weight if none took
place? Was it to hide something else?
So this thread is very relevant. Those seeking to muddy the waters are,
however, not.
Jay S. Hill
> Hmmm...what's a placebo going to do to hematocrit?
> I'm not entirely kidding--years ago I went to a lecture on clinical
> hypnosis by an oral surgeon/hypnotist (Kay Thompson) who when doing an
> extraction told patients they would bleed until the sockets were full,
> and then they would stop--allegedly they did. She also tried a stunt on
> her students (not us). She would pinch a fold of flesh on the back of
> the subjects hand and send a needle through it. She would then announce
> that when the needle was removed, the subject would bleed through the
> left (but not the right) hole. Then she would give the command to
> switch the bleeding holes, and the subject could do that on command.
Did you actually see any of this?
dusto...@mac.com
Who is muddying the waters?
Brian doesn't want to post a weight-over-time shedule for Lance,
apparently. Anyone? --D-y
Fred Fredburger
> "Fred Fredburger" <FredFre...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote in message
> news:3amdnXIhqdNjFqfY...@comcast.com...
>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>> <dusto...@mac.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1161382846.6...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>> I haven't seen Brian's representation of the false mantra recently--
>>>> what LA weighed, when.
>>> http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3242,36-824775@51-789918,0.html
>>> You can also get Tour rider weight from Tour records. Ask Benjo where
>>> they can be found.
>>>
>>>> I asked, but he ignored me. I think it's because he's peeved that Lance
>>>> won the day in the CYA insurance arbitration case, even after a parade
>>>> of testimony that should (so to speak) have won the hearts and minds of
>>>> the arb panel didn't seem to do the trick.
>>> I could not care less about what Armstrong settled for (not won as there
>>> was no decision by the arbitors).
>> Right. It was the insurance co. that made the decision against themselves.
>
> "Against themselves" is a mischaracterization that only comes from ignorant
> morons such as yourself. The insurance company made a business decision
> based on the arbitrator declaring that SCA was an insurer under its contract
> and therefore liable for triple damages.
Yada yada.
No arbitrator decision then, just an arbitrator "declaration" that made
SCA realize they didn't have a leg to stand on, so SCA made a business
decision to pay LA his money plus an extra 200% in penalties.
Wow, that's an impressive distinction. SCA raped themselves but didn't
lose. Pretty much like you arguing with Coggan.
dusto...@mac.com
Fred Fredburger wrote:
<SCA raped themselves (snip)
Excuse me, I think my "stunk up the joint" is much more accurate. Have
a nice day... --D-y
Bill C
By that logic we should've let Hitler "unite" Europe since they'd been
fighting each other for centuries, same for Stalin in the east.
Peace at all costs is a moronic goal IMO. There will be peace in Iraq
after we leave and one side slaughters the vast majority of the others
able to fight and goes to measures such as wiping out the whole family
of anyone who fights them too.
I can't remember who said something like, maybe Stalin, "There will be
peace, even if it's that of the graveyard for my enemies."
Gotta stop talking to politicians. They all suck and really get me
pissed off.
Especially those currently in this administration, and our local
assholes.
Bill C
On Oct 21, 10:28 pm, "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > On Oct 21, 7:04 pm, amit.gh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > Hand wringing and whining while people die is gutless,ironic, you're the biggest hand-wringer and whiner i can think of.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
>
> > Yo gutless one. I served my time looking across the Czech border at
> > Soviet tank divisions who had crushed the Czech people who had the sick
> > ass idea that freedom was a good thing.
> > You trot your gutless ass to Afghanistan and support those people in
> > freedom form having women stoned, Bhuddas destroyed, aid workers
> > murdered, reporters forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint, etc... then
> > we'll talk.Dumbass -
Phil Holman
> Nice try.
> By that logic we should've let Hitler "unite" Europe since they'd been
> fighting each other for centuries, same for Stalin in the east.
> Peace at all costs is a moronic goal IMO. There will be peace in Iraq
> after we leave and one side slaughters the vast majority of the others
> able to fight and goes to measures such as wiping out the whole family
> of anyone who fights them too.
> I can't remember who said something like, maybe Stalin, "There will be
> peace, even if it's that of the graveyard for my enemies."
>
> Gotta stop talking to politicians. They all suck and really get me
> pissed off.
> Especially those currently in this administration, and our local
> assholes.
Which one particularly pisses you off? Let me guess - McGavick.
Phil H
RonSonic
wrote:
Hell, I don't know, but it's pretty obvious that where the weight is counts for
more than how much overall weight he was carrying. He obviously had less upper
body mass as a GC contender than in his Tri days, or his years contending
classics.
Ron
Phil Holman
<dusto...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1161523912.8...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
after chemotherapy, a regimen of powerful cancer-fighting drugs. The
weight loss altered his weight-to-power ratio, or how much energy
(measured in watts) Lance needs to pump into his pedals to move one
kilogram of weight uphill.
To win, Lance has to generate 6 watts of power per kilogram. At a trim
68 kilograms (150 lbs), that adds up to 408 watts of power--enough to
light a room! "A heavier rider needs to put out more watts than a
lighter one," explains Coach Chris Carmichael. "If you added 18 pounds
to Lance's frame, he'd finish 3 minutes, 47 seconds slower on the Alpe
d'Huez climb."
Nicole Dyer - Science World - Oct 1 2001.
Phil H
B. Lafferty
"Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
news:IZadnfFjeMtVSqbY...@comcast.com...
We now know that Nicole didn't have accurate weights. Sixty eight kilos is
fantasy.
le poids de forme du coureur, lorsqu'il est devenu champion du monde en
1993,
était de 75 kg. Interrogé sur son poids de course après son cancer lors de
la séance d'arbitrage avec SCA, Lance Armstrong explique : "J'aurais aimé
débuter le Tour à 72 kg ou 72,5. Faut pas rêver. Je n'ai probablement jamais
atteint ce chiffre. En général, quand j'affichais un petit 74 kg, j'étais
satisfait." Lors de ses Tours victorieux, l'Américain pesait donc seulement
un kilo de moins qu'avant son cancer.
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3242,36-824775@51-789918,0.html
And don't forget, that's Armstrong's statement made under oath.
Bill C
On Oct 22, 11:25 am, "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote:
> > Especially those currently in this administration, and our local
> > assholes.Which one particularly pisses you off? Let me guess - McGavick.
>
> Phil H
Nah, I'm not out in Tacoma anymore. The politics there are better than
here in Mass. though. At the regional/city level it's even more
amazing. Have talked with a batch of people running at the State Rep.
level, Governor, and then Kerry, who is begging and whining for another
chance even though he's full of the same old shit.
We've got an excess of nutjobs from all points of the spectrum, and
the only thing they ALL agree on is that average people should have
their lives totally controlled for them by the "experts". Read that
politicians, and their hired flunkys, and none of them are capable of
telling the truth twice in a row.
We won't even discuss the leadership of both Parties and the
Whitehouse. PJ O'Rourke's "Parliament of Whores" begins to cover it and
is an excellent read.
Just some thoughts from a great American:
All I know is just what I read in the papers, and that's an alibi for
my ignorance.
Will Rogers
Anything important is never left to the vote of the people. We only get
to vote on some man; we never get to vote on what he is to do.
Will Rogers
Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for.
Will Rogers
I can't imagine what he'd say after all the growth of Government in
the last 70 years.
Bill C
Steven Bornfeld
No, and honestly I was quite dubious. However Thompson was rather
well-respected, and lectured and wrote widely (FWIW). She died in 1998.
Steve
Fred Fredburger
They were incredible opposition, General Westmoreland's statistics
notwithstanding.
dusto...@mac.com
B. Lafferty wrote:
> > Armstrong's strength is due in part to his loss of 8 kilograms (18 lbs)
> > after chemotherapy, a regimen of powerful cancer-fighting drugs. The
> > weight loss altered his weight-to-power ratio, or how much energy
> > (measured in watts) Lance needs to pump into his pedals to move one
> > kilogram of weight uphill.
> >
> > To win, Lance has to generate 6 watts of power per kilogram. At a trim 68
> > kilograms (150 lbs), that adds up to 408 watts of power--enough to light a
> > room! "A heavier rider needs to put out more watts than a lighter one,"
> > explains Coach Chris Carmichael. "If you added 18 pounds to Lance's frame,
> > he'd finish 3 minutes, 47 seconds slower on the Alpe d'Huez climb."
> >
> > Nicole Dyer - Science World - Oct 1 2001.
> We now know that Nicole didn't have accurate weights. Sixty eight kilos is
> fantasy.
Who was that guy who used to post all the time in here about Chris
Carmichael not really being Lance's coach?
Does this make CC an agent of the Department of Information?
Well, there apparently was a time when LA did weigh something like 68
kilos. Actually a little less than 68 kilos.
Is there a statement from Lance that he raced at that 68kg weight? IOW,
is there really an official Big Lie? An LA quote from an interview
after his last Tour on OLN, IMS, was "you'll never weigh 165 again",
speaking to and of himself as the last stage was ending in Paris. --D-y
Phil Holman
<dusto...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1161578499.1...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
Is it a coincidence that Carmichael was quoted with a "what if" for LA
weighing an additional 18lb complete with the calculation of the
additional time it would take to climb Alpe d'Huez? I've seen several
pre-cancer weight reports ranging from 165 to 170lb.
The quote you mention may make sense seeing165lb was his off-season
weight which he had to work hard at maintaining to minimize the weight
(10lb) he had to lose for the race season.
Phil H
B. Lafferty
<dusto...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1161578499.1...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Racing weights at the Tour are a matter of record. Show me where Armstrong
ever did the Tour at 68 kilos. The myth he and his people created is that
he lost 15-20 pounds fom the time he first rode the Tour, pre-cancer, and
when he won in 1999-2005.
"J'aurais aimé débuter le Tour à 72 kg ou 72,5. Faut pas rêver. Je n'ai
probablement jamais atteint ce chiffre. En général, quand j'affichais un
petit 74 kg, j'étais satisfait." -Armstrong under oath.
If you look at my weight. My body weight in the Tour de France this year,
I'll be 20 pounds lighter that I was in 1996. That's significant weight when
you're talking about going over the Alps and the Pyrenees and things like
the Tour.--Lance Armstrong
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/thenetwork/news/2000/07/11/one_on_one_armstrong/
Armstrong's 1996 TdF weight per TdF records---75 kilos
http://www.letour.fr/HISTO/TDF/riders/fr/13.html
20lbs. = 9.07 kilos;
72.5 kilos - 9.07 kilos = 63.43 kilos (139.84 lbs)
75 kilos (his weight when winning the Worlds RR in1993) - 9.07 kilos = 65.93
kilos (145.35lbs)
When did he ride a post-cancer Tour at 63.43 kilos or 65.93? Please show us
with an accurate source citation.
dusto...@mac.com
B. Lafferty wrote:
> When did he ride a post-cancer Tour at 63.43 kilos or 65.93? Please show us
> with an accurate source citation.
My accurate citation, obtained via a phone call, was for "racing at
around 165". The 60's-range kilo weight was the bottoming-out from
cancer treatment, same source.
I'd think it was great if I, having for instance nearly won the
Ardennais Weekend, could get any of my competitors to believe I was
racing with something like equal strength, 18lbs. lighter. And indicate
such by finishing 4th at the Vuelta, and 4th at Worlds RR.
Thank you for responding, Brian.
Did you give up on convincing me that CYA defeated Lance by paying him
his policy amount plus penalty?
On to Dick Pound, Man of Virtue (not)? --D-y
aco...@earthlink.net
On Oct 21, 8:58 pm, "B. Lafferty" <M...@Italia.com> wrote:
> <acog...@earthlink.net> wrote in messagenews:1161480499.1...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > B. Lafferty wrote:
> >> <acog...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>news:1161395991.0...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> >> > B. Lafferty wrote:
>
> >> >> And how much, by percentage, do you estimate a regimen of epo,
> >> >> autologus
> >> >> blood doping, hgh and testosterone could raise VO2max?
>
> >> > Growth hormone and testoterone would do nothing to increase your
> >> > VO2max. OTOH, use of EPO or blood doping would result is a significant
> >> > boost, the magnitude of which would depend on your initial hematocrit.
> >> > For example, someone whose natural hematocrit when training was 45%
> >> > would probably only experience a ~5% increase in VO2max, assuming that
> >> > they took their hematocrit all the way up to the UCI limit.
>
> >> And as we know, riders and their doctors are adept at lowering the
> >> reading
> >> for the vampires.
>
> > We do?
> Several pro riders have described how it's done. Hence the call for testing
> at the start line.
Ah - so because some non-medically-educated individuals SAY that
hematocrit can be so easily manipulated that current testing is
worthless, it must be true.
\> >> So, if they take it to 55% to 60% we would see perhaps a
> >> 10% to 12% (?) increase getting the rider into the 91+ VOmax range.
>
> > See, and there's the rub: there are individuals who *haven't* used EPO
> > with VO2max values that high (heck, mine was around 80 mL/min/kg when I
> > was young, and my performance ability was still ~10% shy of that needed
> > to be a journeyman pro in Europe). Ergo, you can't conclude that just
> > because a pig flies that it must be doped.
> There are very few pro riders with natural VO2max of 90+. IIRC.
1) There is much more to performance than VO2max.
2) How do you know that Armstrong wasn't one of those who came by their
athletic abilities naturally?
(Answer: you can't...which is why your position, and in fact this whole
thread, is pointless.)
> >>Voila,
> >> pigs can fly.
> >> While the hgh and testosterone wouldn't raise VOmax, they would aid in
> >> other
> >> aspects of physiology allowing for greater training, better recovery and
> >> the development of greater efficiency.
>
> > HGH and/or testosterone would do nothing for efficiency, and their
> > benefit as training/recovery aids is unproven.
> Let's pass that along to the pro peloton. I'm certain they'll beleive you
> and cease their use of such products.
Yeah, just because the pros do it, it must work. <rollseyes> By that
(il)logic, intramuscular injections of ATP and/or iron also must be
highly effective.
Andy Coggan
aco...@earthlink.net
> <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote in messagenews:1161523912.8...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > need more sun wrote:
> >> Guys, the issue is this: Armstrong and his camp said that his
> >> newfound
> >> ability to climb in late 98/1999 and later years was due to all the
> >> weight he lost. That explained how a guy with no pre-cancer record in
> >> the high mountains could come back and beat the best.
>
> >> If it turns out that there was not a dramatic weight loss, well then
> >> anyone with half a brain needs to ask two questions:
>
> >> a) how did he become such a good climber
> >> b) why did he and others claim a big change in weight if none took
> >> place? Was it to hide something else?
>
> >> So this thread is very relevant. Those seeking to muddy the waters
> >> are,
> >> however, not.
>
> > Who is muddying the waters?
>
> > Brian doesn't want to post a weight-over-time shedule for Lance,
> after chemotherapy, a regimen of powerful cancer-fighting drugs. The
> weight loss altered his weight-to-power ratio, or how much energy
> (measured in watts) Lance needs to pump into his pedals to move one
> kilogram of weight uphill.
>
> To win, Lance has to generate 6 watts of power per kilogram. At a trim
> 68 kilograms (150 lbs), that adds up to 408 watts of power--enough to
> light a room! "A heavier rider needs to put out more watts than a
> lighter one," explains Coach Chris Carmichael. "If you added 18 pounds
> to Lance's frame, he'd finish 3 minutes, 47 seconds slower on the Alpe
> d'Huez climb."
>
> Nicole Dyer - Science World - Oct 1 2001.
>
1) Armstrong was never under 70 kg (except perhaps when he was
undergoing chemotherapy).
2) The power he could sustain for 30+ min was much closer to 500 than
400 W.
Andy Coggan
B. Lafferty
<aco...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1161629443.6...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
"Autologous blood doping is still undetectable, and not particularly
complicated. In this technique, the athlete extracts and stores some of
their own blood, and reinfuses it when the body has recovered its normal red
blood cell level. The effect is an immediate boost in red cells and oxygen
carrying capacity.
All that's required is a set of bags and tubing, the proper substance to
preserve the blood overnight, and a fridge. The blood - which can also be
boosted with EPO - can be withdrawn in the weeks leading up to a big event,
when an rider is not in competition.
Then it can be reinfused on the morning of an important stage, even as late
as 9:00am, which is after any possible UCI medical inspector visits, but
before the stage starts."
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/?id=2005/avoid_positive I guess Jeff
was having an acid flashback, eh Coggan? Time for you to stop being
disigenuous.
>
> \> >> So, if they take it to 55% to 60% we would see perhaps a
>> >> 10% to 12% (?) increase getting the rider into the 91+ VOmax range.
>>
>> > See, and there's the rub: there are individuals who *haven't* used EPO
>> > with VO2max values that high (heck, mine was around 80 mL/min/kg when I
>> > was young, and my performance ability was still ~10% shy of that needed
>> > to be a journeyman pro in Europe). Ergo, you can't conclude that just
>> > because a pig flies that it must be doped.
>
>> There are very few pro riders with natural VO2max of 90+. IIRC.
>
> 1) There is much more to performance than VO2max.
True, but there is a much more direct correlation between climbing and
VO2max.
>
> 2) How do you know that Armstrong wasn't one of those who came by their
> athletic abilities naturally?
A rider with a VO2max of 82 climing with a doped up climber like Pantani.
Reality check time for you, Coggan.
>
> (Answer: you can't...which is why your position, and in fact this whole
> thread, is pointless.)
The point of this thread is that there are tremendous inconsistancies
refarding the line Armstrong, et al. have spouted for years and what was
actually true as to is climbing so well post cancer due to having lost 15 to
20 lbs. From Armstrong's own statements we know that is false. Combined
with what we have been told by various former employees, former teammates
and team staff, I'd say that more likely than not that Armstrong and
Postal/Discovery were doping. Disagree if you like. As the columnist at
Sports Illustrated online pointed out, the truth has a way of coming out
evenually.
>
>> >>Voila,
>> >> pigs can fly.
>> >> While the hgh and testosterone wouldn't raise VOmax, they would aid in
>> >> other
>> >> aspects of physiology allowing for greater training, better recovery
>> >> and
>> >> the development of greater efficiency.
>>
>> > HGH and/or testosterone would do nothing for efficiency, and their
>> > benefit as training/recovery aids is unproven.
>
>> Let's pass that along to the pro peloton. I'm certain they'll beleive
>> you
>> and cease their use of such products.
>
> Yeah, just because the pros do it, it must work. <rollseyes> By that
> (il)logic, intramuscular injections of ATP and/or iron also must be
> highly effective.
You don't argue well when cornered.
>
> Andy Coggan
>
aco...@earthlink.net
> Racing weights at the Tour are a matter of record.
And one year they had Ullrich as weighing significantly less than
Armstrong...which goes to show you just how accurate those data really
are.
Andy Coggan
aco...@earthlink.net
And how does such a rider avoiding getting caught when the UCI vampires
come calling the next morning? Answer: they can't - hence, the
hematocrit limit prevents all but the most foolish from reinfusing
enough blood/taking enough EPO to boost their performance more than
5-10%.
> > \> >> So, if they take it to 55% to 60% we would see perhaps a
> >> >> 10% to 12% (?) increase getting the rider into the 91+ VOmax range.
> >>
> >> > See, and there's the rub: there are individuals who *haven't* used EPO
> >> > with VO2max values that high (heck, mine was around 80 mL/min/kg when I
> >> > was young, and my performance ability was still ~10% shy of that needed
> >> > to be a journeyman pro in Europe). Ergo, you can't conclude that just
> >> > because a pig flies that it must be doped.
> >
> >> There are very few pro riders with natural VO2max of 90+. IIRC.
> >
> > 1) There is much more to performance than VO2max.
>
> True, but there is a much more direct correlation between climbing and
> VO2max.
Compared to sprinting, maybe. However, your external power output is
still a function of 1) LT, and 2) efficiency, both of which tend to
increase with more years of training.
> > 2) How do you know that Armstrong wasn't one of those who came by their
> > athletic abilities naturally?
>
> A rider with a VO2max of 82 climing with a doped up climber like Pantani.
> Reality check time for you, Coggan.
Reality check for YOU, Lafferty: Armstrong's pre-cancer VO2max is
widely reported as being in the low 80's *as measured at altitude*.
> > (Answer: you can't...which is why your position, and in fact this whole
> > thread, is pointless.)
>
> The point of this thread is that there are tremendous inconsistancies
> refarding the line Armstrong, et al. have spouted for years and what was
> actually true as to is climbing so well post cancer due to having lost 15 to
> 20 lbs. From Armstrong's own statements we know that is false. Combined
> with what we have been told by various former employees, former teammates
> and team staff, I'd say that more likely than not that Armstrong and
> Postal/Discovery were doping. Disagree if you like. As the columnist at
> Sports Illustrated online pointed out, the truth has a way of coming out
> evenually.
None of which has anything at all to do with whether or not his
performance is/is not credible when viewed from a physiological
perspective. Simply put, you (and everyone else who has focussed on
this argument) are simply wasting your time thinking about such things.
> >> >>Voila,
> >> >> pigs can fly.
> >> >> While the hgh and testosterone wouldn't raise VOmax, they would aid in
> >> >> other
> >> >> aspects of physiology allowing for greater training, better recovery
> >> >> and
> >> >> the development of greater efficiency.
> >>
> >> > HGH and/or testosterone would do nothing for efficiency, and their
> >> > benefit as training/recovery aids is unproven.
> >
> >> Let's pass that along to the pro peloton. I'm certain they'll beleive
> >> you
> >> and cease their use of such products.
> >
> > Yeah, just because the pros do it, it must work. <rollseyes> By that
> > (il)logic, intramuscular injections of ATP and/or iron also must be
> > highly effective.
>
> You don't argue well when cornered.
Au contraire: my argument, unlike yours, is logically consistent
(unless you actually do believe that intramuscular injections of ATP
and/or iron are routinely ergogenic...in which case, you need to brush
up on your physiology).
Andy Coggan
Bill C
On Oct 22, 10:47 pm, Fred Fredburger
<FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> > Bill C wrote:
>
> >> N. Korea, even now, in Human rights rankings, and the fact that we
> >> abandoned our allies in the region allowed Pol-Pot to slaughter several
> >> million because there was no credible opposition
>
> > Ignoramous -
>
> > The Vietnamese Communists were the ones who deposed Pol Pot.They were incredible opposition, General Westmoreland's statistics
Yep, do a google and you'll find me touting their brilliance, but they
were happy to have a Fellow Traveler take Cambodia, until they found
out he was a nutcase who was channelling Stalins purges in his head,
and was WAY to crazy to not sideline.
> notwithstanding.
Hell Hitler and Stalin had a pact, but decided that the other was too
dangerous to leave alone. Same case here.
Bill C