Lance and the "Big" question
Patrick Kavanagh
performances and I have to ask myself does nobody believe that a rider can
be clean and a winner?. I do and as for Lance there is something convincing
about him that I have yet to see in many other pro riders. As a Brit I do
admire his straight talking head on approach to the issues that are thrown
at him from many quarters and the way he picks out the journo's at the tour
who have tried to needle him. Lets be honest that stare is frightening!
Facts are facts and he was world champion at 21 and look at the video as I
have and see his cadence and see it was not slow, his win in La Fleche
Wallone and his determined stage wins all when the cancer was there. Its
only my view but he was destined to be a champ and the sneers and rumours
are from those filled with envy and jealousy. Ok over to you, lets have a
debate,
Patrick Kavanagh
Twyford
Berkshire
UK
www.readingcyclingclub.com
Rob Oberbeck
Seen as how threads like this show up.... roughly every two minutes.... I
thought I would take the chance to tell you that no one cares.
Daniel Connelly
> the way he picks out the journo's at the tour
> who have tried to needle him.
With what are they trying to needle him? Is this related
to the "big question"?
Hellephant
> does nobody believe that a rider can be clean and a winner?. I do and
You do, ha?
If someone, who new if Armstrong was clean or not, came up to you and put a
gun in your mouth. That person then asked you: "do you believe Armstrong is
clean? If your answer is wrong, I'll kill you". Would you guess that
Armstrong is clean!!!! I don't think you would.
Everybody knows that doping is used like crazy. And everybody knows that
those forbidden products are working very well, that's why people risk
health and other things to use them. Does any living thing with a brain,
believe that someone under these circumstances, can not only win, but
dominate, the most important and hardest race?
Andre
It comes from the fact that Lance was never a climber and as soon as
he got the drugs for cancer he was suddenly unbeatable up a mountain.
He never even used to climb them, but instead, in the Tour, when the
mountains came he would abandon and go home. His entourage has just
been perfect in hiding the evidence. The stare is certainly drug
induced.
Andre
Dave Hansen
"Patrick Kavanagh" <Patrick...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:a6djoi$kmr$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
> You know I see so many posts about Lance and the question of his superb
> performances and I have to ask myself does nobody believe that a rider can
> be clean and a winner?
Can you say RSR 13?
Dave
Amit
> performances and I have to ask myself does nobody believe that a rider can
> be clean and a winner?.
This debate will never end. You either have to believe that every top
rider is doping or you have consider someone clean unless they 1) test
positive or 2) admit to doping (often after being caught possessing
doping products). Usually 2) is more common than 1). Most who have
admitted to doping had never tested positive.
I'm not so cynical as to believe that every single top rider chooses
to dope. I'm sure some riders (even if they are the minority) aren't
going to risk to their career or health for some fleeting glory.
I can see why Lance is indignant at someone like Bassons who without
evidence accuses those who perform well of doping.
> I do and as for Lance there is something convincing
> about him that I have yet to see in many other pro riders. As a Brit I do
> admire his straight talking head on approach to the issues that are thrown
> at him from many quarters and the way he picks out the journo's at the tour
> who have tried to needle him. Lets be honest that stare is frightening!
> Facts are facts and he was world champion at 21 and look at the video as I
> have and see his cadence and see it was not slow, his win in La Fleche
> Wallone and his determined stage wins all when the cancer was there. Its
> only my view but he was destined to be a champ and the sneers and rumours
> are from those filled with envy and jealousy.
Yes, Armstrong has been a professional athlete since the age of 17, he
has always been gifted, so it's not as if he came out of nowhere to
win the Tour. You also have to admire the American way of preparation,
very calculated and controlled. America has gone from having only a
handful of riders at the top level to having over a dozen riders in
Div 1.
-Amit
brian trdina
"Andre" <dead...@softhome.net> wrote in message
> It comes from the fact that Lance was never a climber and as soon as
> he got the drugs for cancer he was suddenly unbeatable up a mountain.
> He never even used to climb them, but instead, in the Tour, when the
> mountains came he would abandon and go home. His entourage has just
> been perfect in hiding the evidence. The stare is certainly drug
> induced.
Andre,
Use your head: Lets assume for the sake of argument that lance is a doper,
and that he's been a doper his whole career. Since he wasn't the best in
the high mountains before, but now he is, there has to be something besides
dope that has lead to his dominance in that terrain. The most obvious
reason is that he weighs 20 pounds less now than he did when he was a
classics rider. I suspect that at least a portion of that weight loss can
be attributed to his disease (if not directly as a result of his treatment,
then from his new attitude on life following a near-death experience).
I believe that many, if not a majority, of pro cyclists use banned drugs in
an attempt to increase their performance. I have also been critical of
Lance and USPS when his/their behavior warranted it. That being said, look
at the evidence: USPS and Lance have been the subject of a drug witch hunt
for several years. The evaluations associated with this hunt have included
the analysis of urine and blood samples (including those frozen and
retrieved from several years ago) by prosecutors who were trying their best
to find something (as opposed to some UCI test where bad publicity is of
more concern that ferreting out cheaters). The result of these evaluations
has been a big, fat nothing: no dope found, no evidence of cheating,
nothing.
Now, as your post claims, I'm sure that devoted cycling fan like yourself
can pick out drug use by the visage of an athlete during competition alone
However, for the less experienced of the group, can you offer more concrete
evidence to back your conjecture that Lance is doped...?
Brian
Tom Paterson
>It comes from the fact that Lance was never a climber and as soon as
>he got the drugs for cancer he was suddenly unbeatable up a mountain.
As soon as he got the drugs, or shortly thereafter, he was in no shape to ride
a bike. He rode the Greune TTT with Eddy Merckx in 96 Nov, still bald at a
fairly slow, exhibition pace as a "return to racing". Nothing listed for
results in his website for 97, then had the string of 4ths in 98 that led to
the success of 99 and beyond.
Not any way "as soon as", more like a year to a year and a half to get back
*near* the top.
>The stare is certainly drug
>induced.
All the photos I've seen of "the stare" (Ullrich, TDF) show the back of Lance's
head. I thought it was hard to say anything from that angle. You have other to
photos or any evidence to back you up?
--Tom Paterson
Andre
Picking out drug use through physiognimy is not too hard. For example:
I can tell if someone is on weed or coke or heroin or uppers or
downers or steroids just by their expression. I don't know if you
clssify that as "concrete". Also, weren't some empty vials found
about a year ago by UCI that were supposed to belong to USPS riders.
There was also a rider whose name escapes me who rode on the tour a
couple of years ago and said that whenever he rode next to Armstrong
he was 100 percent sure he was doped just by looking at him(he even
wrote a book about it). I think it's a tough egg to crack though (this
doping shit), mainly because there are drugs to hide drugs, drugs to
detect drugs that hide drugs, drugs to hide detection....you know what
I mean.
Andre
Steven L. Sheffield
dead...@softhome.net (Andre) wrote:
> Picking out drug use through physiognimy is not too hard. For example:
> I can tell if someone is on weed or coke or heroin or uppers or
> downers or steroids just by their expression. I don't know if you
> clssify that as "concrete". Also, weren't some empty vials found
> about a year ago by UCI that were supposed to belong to USPS riders.
> There was also a rider whose name escapes me who rode on the tour a
> couple of years ago and said that whenever he rode next to Armstrong
> he was 100 percent sure he was doped just by looking at him(he even
> wrote a book about it). I think it's a tough egg to crack though (this
> doping shit), mainly because there are drugs to hide drugs, drugs to
> detect drugs that hide drugs, drugs to hide detection....you know what
> I mean.
>
> Andre
Andre ... hmmm ... that's a French name, isn't it ... and aren't the
French the ones who have been trying and trying and trying to prove that
Armstrong is a doper?
Hey ... guess what the French said yesterday:
French official: no evidence of doping by Armstrong's team
By MICHAEL McDONOUGH
Associated Press Writer
March 8, 2002
PARIS (AP) -- A drug investigation of Lance Armstrong's cycling team so
far has yielded no results suggesting the squad used banned substances
during the 2000 Tour de France.
``The inquiry will end soon,'' Francois Franchi, an assistant to the
Paris prosecutor handling the case, told The Associated Press on Friday.
``We have found nothing so far.''
Franchi did not say when he expected the inquiry into the U.S. Postal
Service team to finish. The investigation began in November 2000.
Armstrong has won the Tour de France the last three years. He repeatedly
has denied taking banned substances and has never failed a drug test. In
France, he has been dogged by suspicions of doping.
``We have no certainty about the use of a doping substance,'' Franchi
said. ``We do not know whether something was taken. All the tests are
negative.''
Armstrong and nine teammates were summoned to appear last month before
investigators seeking information. The Texan told investigators he would
not show.
The French investigation was triggered by an anonymous letter saying a
crew from France-3 television had detected suspicious behavior by U.S.
Postal officials during the tour.
--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
veloworks at mac dot com
aitch tee tea pea colon four word slash forward slash double ewe double you double yew dot veloworks dot com
Ryan Fisher
> If someone, who new (sic) if Armstrong was clean or not, came up to you
and put a
> gun in your mouth. That person then asked you: "do you believe Armstrong
is
> clean? If your answer is wrong, I'll kill you". Would you guess that
> Armstrong is clean!!!! I don't think you would.
what in the hell kind of situation is this...... seriously man. what the
hell? Less TV/Movies, more bike.
Josef Pribramska
> "Patrick Kavanagh" <Patrick...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:<a6djoi$kmr$1...@helle.btinternet.com>...
> > You know I see so many posts about Lance and the question of his superb
> Those who oppose your point of view are not all envious and jealous.
> It comes from the fact that Lance was never a climber and as
> soon as he got the drugs for cancer he was suddenly unbeatable
> up a mountain.
Chemotherapy - a metaphor for socially acceptable wild-eyed drug
usage. This will be the most notable aspect of Lance's career.
Hellephant
"Ryan Fisher" <gte...@prism.gatech.edu> skrev i meddelandet
news:a6eq73$pbm$1...@news-int.gatech.edu...
You are right. Especially since I don't master the English language.
But I'll try one more time.
Armstrong is clean until proven not. But if people like to speculate over
the question, I don't understand how anyone seriously can think that he is
clean.
Considering the facts:
1. Doping is used heavily in cycling (like in many other sports).
2. Doping is very effective.
3. Armstrong is superior.
If you have little sense, then you understand that it's very likely that
Armstrong is using forbidden products.
Daniel Connelly
> Armstrong is clean until proven not. But if people like to speculate over
> the question, I don't understand how anyone seriously can think that he is
> clean.
> Considering the facts:
> 1. Doping is used heavily in cycling (like in many other sports).
> 2. Doping is very effective.
> 3. Armstrong is superior.
>
His effective use of altitude tents, quite legal, is an explanation for his ability
to compete with those using EPO.
Dan
Brian Lafferty
--
"Steven L. Sheffield" <ste...@veloworks.com> wrote in message
news:stevens-27A741...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
And Dicky V. never tested positive. VDB hasn't tested positive. Etc.
Testing negative proves little given the art of doping today. One can only
hope that Armstrong is clean but this can not be a certainty any more than
it can be a certainty that he is doping. All we can say is that he's never
tested positive and never been caught in posession of banned
substances----like Marco.
Brian Lafferty
Hellephant
Daniel Connelly wrote:
> His effective use of altitude tents, quite legal, is an explanation for
his ability
> to compete with those using EPO.
>
> Dan
What do you mean effective use? Do other use that tent less affective?
If an altitude tent has the same effect as EPO, then why aren't everybody
using them instead of EPO? That would be cheaper, safer and legal!!
Daniel Connelly
It seems to me tents are a major PITA, and operate over longer time scales.
Tom Paterson
quoted "deadbugs":>> Those who oppose your point of view are not all envious
and jealous.
>> It comes from the fact that Lance was never a climber and as
>> soon as he got the drugs for cancer he was suddenly unbeatable
>> up a mountain.
As soon as, suddenly--again, not so. Chemo treatments in 97. "Unbeatable" in
99. "Beatable" (string of 4th places in big races) in 98.
Let's define sudden a little better. Let's not ignore the ~20 lb. weight
difference.
Josef P. chimed in:
>Chemotherapy - a metaphor for socially acceptable wild-eyed drug
>usage. This will be the most notable >aspect of Lance's career.
I've seen photos of Lance during chemo. I didn't see much "wild-eyed"
expression. So which chemo drugs are you saying produce this effect?
Noting the lack of positive tests, also the ability to perform consistently
over a period of three weeks, three times in a row now. Hardly the typical
performance of someone who is artificially stimulated.
So is it the money, the financial security, the beautiful wife, the children,
the fame, the brass to right down the throat of his accusers--what is it that
you're really going after here? --Tom Paterson
brian trdina
"Brian Lafferty" <jav...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> And Dicky V. never tested positive. VDB hasn't tested positive. Etc.
> Testing negative proves little given the art of doping today. One can
only
> hope that Armstrong is clean but this can not be a certainty any more
than
> it can be a certainty that he is doping. All we can say is that he's
never
> tested positive and never been caught in posession of banned
> substances----like Marco.
>
> Brian Lafferty
That was basically the point that I was trying to make (it should be noted
that he and his team have been the subject of intense scrutiny, which has
resulted in no evidence of any wrongdoing). However, I took exception to
Andre's 'I can tell he's on drugs just by looking at him' horseshit.
brian trdina
I mean, look at the stares and expressions. I can tell they're doped just
by looking at a picture of them on my computer screen...!
Look at the smug grin on this guy: A sure sign of amphetamine use...!
http://www.aldenchronicles.com/archives/election_archive/webalbum4/images/da
schle_jpg.jpg
This guy just did about 50 bong hits, I bet:
http://sinaj.net/portreti/ales.jpg
..And look at the jaw on this mofo, an HGH user for sure...!
http://www.horses.co.uk/images/3387.cgi?P=bng&S=BNG&D=horses%2Fbertiengeorge
%2Fbertiengeorge.sdb&B=rain1&R=bng-rain
Daniel Connelly
> As soon as, suddenly--again, not so. Chemo treatments in 97. "Unbeatable" in
> 99. "Beatable" (string of 4th places in big races) in 98.
>
You left out : World Champion, 1993. (when the Worlds was Real, in August)
Dan
Daniel Connelly
>
> I mean, look at the stares and expressions. I can tell they're doped just
> by looking at a picture of them on my computer screen...!
And this one of Fignon -- look at that grotesque visage. This guy probably
funded Ferrari's house :
http://home.flash.net/~djconnel/fignon.png
Dan
Brad Anders
"Daniel Connelly" <djco...@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:3C8B723F...@ieee.org...
To me, it's the face of demonic possession. Scary.
Brad Anders
Noel Llopis
The picture is an obvious fake. Is it left over from some sort
of joke for a helmet thread? Or is it something demonstrating
the aerodynamics of a helmet (if he only had worn that helmet he
could have won the Tour).
Just curious. I like the grin in his face though :-)
--Noel
Tom Paterson
>You left out : World Champion, 1993. (when the Worlds was Real, in August)
>
Well I was pointing out errors in the "suddenly unbeatable" stuff being posted,
as if the cancer drugs were some kind of super long lasting upper. Pre cancer,
he came up one Pascal (Richard) short of winning the Ardennes Double, too (96
IMS).
Another "pro Lance" arguement is that his string of 4ths in '98 might have sent
a less-determined rider into retirement, esp. since (by rumor anyhow) he had
secured lifetime financial security by that point.
Ponder the feat of learning how to TT, which some say must be inborn, and climb
later in his career. "Sprinting might be next".
Admirable for his pro accomplishments, not a "cult of personality" TYVM.
--Tom Paterson
Steven L. Sheffield
"Brian Lafferty" <jav...@earthlink.net> wrote:
And the discarded syringes and bandages that the TV crews found showed
no signs of containing any banned substances either ...
Which is the point.
Andre
Brian,
I'm not French, close, I'm Belgian. If you think I sounded bias it
wasn't my intention. I was just responding to a post, and it's
something that's been on my mind a lot. Something that first raised
suspicions in me was before the start of the first tour he won, his
doctors presented UCI with a special doctor's note that said, (not
vervatim) "if high levels of oxygen are found in Lance it is due to
his cancer treatment drugs, so he must be excused" (remember?) If
Lance is doping or not we may never know for certain; if he's not,
then more power to him man.
Andre
Ken Papai
"Hellephant" <lager...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u4Ei8.13668$O5.3...@nntpserver.swip.net...
>
> "Ryan Fisher" <gte...@prism.gatech.edu> skrev i meddelandet
> news:a6eq73$pbm$1...@news-int.gatech.edu...
> >
> > > If someone, who new (sic) if Armstrong was clean or not, came up to
you
> > and put a
> > > gun in your mouth. That person then asked you: "do you believe
Armstrong
> > is
> > > clean? If your answer is wrong, I'll kill you". Would you guess that
> > > Armstrong is clean!!!! I don't think you would.
> >
> > what in the hell kind of situation is this...... seriously man. what the
> > hell? Less TV/Movies, more bike.
>
> You are right. Especially since I don't master the English language.
> But I'll try one more time.
>
> Armstrong is clean until proven not. But if people like to speculate over
> the question, I don't understand how anyone seriously can think that he is
> clean.
> Considering the facts:
> 1. Doping is used heavily in cycling (like in many other sports).
> 2. Doping is very effective.
> 3. Armstrong is superior.
And, doping is used by the inferior, the weaker
to at least have a foothold with their superiors.
If you have any sense you'd know Armstrong doesn't need to
nor would even DARE to dope. He has never been a fool.
Luckily many others are like him in the peloton -- knowing
how STUPID ONCE MUST BE to dope anymore
and get caughjt cheating and piss away your career.
Ken Papai
"Andre Anonymous" <dead...@softhome.net> ...
> Patrick Kavanagh wrote:
> > You know I see so many posts about Lance and the question of his superb
> > performances and I have to ask myself does nobody believe that a rider
can
> > be clean and a winner?. I do and as for Lance there is something
convincing
> > about him that I have yet to see in many other pro riders. As a Brit I
do
> > admire his straight talking head on approach to the issues that are
thrown
> > at him from many quarters and the way he picks out the journo's at the
tour
> > who have tried to needle him. Lets be honest that stare is frightening!
> > Facts are facts and he was world champion at 21 and look at the video as
I
> > have and see his cadence and see it was not slow, his win in La Fleche
> > Wallone and his determined stage wins all when the cancer was there. Its
> > only my view but he was destined to be a champ and the sneers and
rumours
> > are from those filled with envy and jealousy. Ok over to you, lets have
a
> > debate,
> Those who oppose your point of view are not all envious and jealous.
> It comes from the fact that Lance was never a climber and as soon as
> he got the drugs for cancer he was suddenly unbeatable up a mountain.
> He never even used to climb them, but instead, in the Tour, when the
> mountains came he would abandon and go home. His entourage has just
> been perfect in hiding the evidence. The stare is certainly drug
> induced.
Andre -- your brain's pickled.
Armstrong's body type changed between 1996 and 1998.
You somehow conveniently FORGET that??
You are a fool and a troll.
Philip Holman
Bias.... more like libelous. Accusing someone of being on drugs
just by looking at them can get you in serious trouble even if clouded
by the question of opinion. Depending on which country your ass was
being sued you would have an impossible time proving your statement
to be true.
One needs facts and data. Saying Lance is on drugs and has never
been caught because of good coverup is another libelous claim.
I was just responding to a post, and it's
> something that's been on my mind a lot. Something that first raised
> suspicions in me was before the start of the first tour he won, his
> doctors presented UCI with a special doctor's note that said, (not
> vervatim) "if high levels of oxygen are found in Lance it is due to
> his cancer treatment drugs, so he must be excused" (remember?) If
> Lance is doping or not we may never know for certain; if he's not,
> then more power to him man.
I would tend to assume not until some hard evidence comes along
and not the evidence of floored logic that you propose here.
Phil Holman
Tom Kunich
>
> > does nobody believe that a rider can be clean and a winner?. I do and
>
> Everybody knows that doping is used like crazy. And everybody knows that
> those forbidden products are working very well, that's why people risk
> health and other things to use them. Does any living thing with a brain,
> believe that someone under these circumstances, can not only win, but
> dominate, the most important and hardest race?
What everyone knows is that you are an idiot. The substances that really
work are detectable. Those that don't work are almost all detectable It is
likely that most of the stuff used as a doping substance not only do not
work but depress performances.
Tom Kunich
>
> Considering the facts:
> 1. Doping is used heavily in cycling (like in many other sports).
This is true.
> 2. Doping is very effective.
This is most certainly not true. Under special circumstances doping can be
effective. Remember that East Germany went about doping in a scientific and
total manner. Yet they achieved spotty results from their programs. Now you
are suggesting that a bunch of Willy Voets know how to do things that entire
state sponsored programs with large scientific staffs and state sponsored
budgets were unable to do. Sure.
> 3. Armstrong is superior.
True again.
Tom Kunich
>
> Daniel Connelly wrote:
> > His effective use of altitude tents, quite legal, is an explanation for
> his ability
> > to compete with those using EPO.
> >
> If an altitude tent has the same effect as EPO, then why aren't everybody
> using them instead of EPO? That would be cheaper, safer and legal!!
You might consider that most people are unwilling to sleep alone under a
plastic hood.
Tom Kunich
> Those who oppose your point of view are not all envious and jealous.
> It comes from the fact that Lance was never a climber and as soon as
> he got the drugs for cancer he was suddenly unbeatable up a mountain.
And the fact that he lost 20+ lbs had no bearing on the matter at all.
> He never even used to climb them, but instead, in the Tour, when the
> mountains came he would abandon and go home. His entourage has just
> been perfect in hiding the evidence. The stare is certainly drug
> induced.
Well, why didn't we see it -- the "Stare" -- of course, the proves he uses
drugs. Hell, Bernard Hinault must have been using gunpowder then because his
stare scared the shit out of people.
Kyle Legate
> If you have any sense you'd know Armstrong doesn't need to
> nor would even DARE to dope. He has never been a fool.
> Luckily many others are like him in the peloton -- knowing
> how STUPID ONCE MUST BE to dope anymore
> and get caughjt cheating and piss away your career.
>
I think you are seriously overestimating the intelligence of most pro bike
racers.
... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
leg...@mcmaster.ca Kyle Legate leg...@hotmail.com
Tower of Tongues:Thursday PM:10:30-11:30 EDT:http://cfmu.mcmaster.ca
moon musick:ritual:IDM:experimental(electronica):minimalism:glitch
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
Tom Kunich
> I can tell if someone is on weed or coke or heroin or uppers or
> downers or steroids just by their expression.
You may be able to tell when someone is high on a recreational drug but if
you think that there are physical signs of people using performance
enhancing drugs you are on something yourself.
> Also, weren't some empty vials found
> about a year ago by UCI that were supposed to belong to USPS riders.
So you don't even know what was found and are commenting on it? They found
some bags of stuff that is used to put on bandages to keep wounds moist so
that they heal faster. This stuff is manufacturered from calve's blood serum
and some people suggested that it would act like a natural blood booster --
a rediculous statement in every regard.
> There was also a rider whose name escapes me who rode on the tour a
> couple of years ago and said that whenever he rode next to Armstrong
> he was 100 percent sure he was doped just by looking at him(he even
> wrote a book about it).
If you are talking about Basson's he said that EVERYONE was doping. Even
Willy Voet said that only about 60% of the peloton at the worst time was
doping. I believe that Basson's was positive at least once. Sounds like an
excuse to me.
> I think it's a tough egg to crack though (this
> doping shit), mainly because there are drugs to hide drugs, drugs to
> detect drugs that hide drugs, drugs to hide detection....you know what
> I mean.
What you mean is that you have no scientific training at all, know nothing
about the detection methods and have no idea how accurate and complete drug
detection really is. Try this on for size: it is now possible to tell that
someone walked through a room in which a single puff on a cigarette had been
taken by analyzing a blood test. That is how sensitive the detection methods
now are. Parts per billion are readily detectable.
NESP, a form of EPO, was detected in the bloodstream of competitors in the
latest Olympics and EPO is one of the very few doping substances that are
hard to detect -- not because it is all that hard to detect but because it
clears from the system quite rapidly while it's actions take a week or so to
calm down.
A couple of months ago I stated that NESP was EASIER to detect than rhEPO
and many laughed at that statement which was then proven completely correct
in the Olympics. I didn't see anyone printing an apology.
Human Growth Hormone generally referred to as HgH is a lot more detectable
than NESP and it requires a lot of the stuff in the system CONTINUOUSLY to
have any effect.
There are virtually no other performance enhancing substances that are not
readily detectable.
Tom Kunich
news:lLHi8.9899$Vx1.7...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
Can you explain this to us Brian?
> One can only
> hope that Armstrong is clean but this can not be a certainty any more
than
> it can be a certainty that he is doping. All we can say is that he's
never
> tested positive and never been caught in posession of banned
> substances----like Marco.
Perhaps you mean "unlike Marco"?
Amit
> Daniel Connelly <djco...@ieee.org> wrote in
> news:3C8B723F...@ieee.org:
>
> > brian trdina wrote:
> >>
> >> I mean, look at the stares and expressions. I can tell they're doped
> >> just by looking at a picture of them on my computer screen...!
> >
> > And this one of Fignon -- look at that grotesque visage. This guy
> > probably funded Ferrari's house :
> >
> > http://home.flash.net/~djconnel/fignon.png
>
> The picture is an obvious fake.
Looks like we got an Einstein here.
Kyle Legate
> What everyone knows is that you are an idiot. The substances that really
> work are detectable. Those that don't work are almost all detectable It is
>
Do you know something the rest of the world doesn't?
Steve Leuty
Steve Leuty
Hellephant wrote:
>
> "Ryan Fisher" <gte...@prism.gatech.edu> skrev i meddelandet
> news:a6eq73$pbm$1...@news-int.gatech.edu...
> >
> > > If someone, who new (sic) if Armstrong was clean or not, came up to you
> > and put a
> > > gun in your mouth. That person then asked you: "do you believe Armstrong
> > is
> > > clean? If your answer is wrong, I'll kill you". Would you guess that
> > > Armstrong is clean!!!! I don't think you would.
> >
> > what in the hell kind of situation is this...... seriously man. what the
> > hell? Less TV/Movies, more bike.
>
> You are right. Especially since I don't master the English language.
> But I'll try one more time.
>
> Armstrong is clean until proven not. But if people like to speculate over
> the question, I don't understand how anyone seriously can think that he is
> clean.
> Considering the facts:
> 1. Doping is used heavily in cycling (like in many other sports).
> 2. Doping is very effective.
> 3. Armstrong is superior.
>
> If you have little sense, then you understand that it's very likely that
> Armstrong is using forbidden products.
Steve Leuty
they can't but want desparately to play with the big boys need to resort
to dirty tactics to achive that goal.
Steve Leuty
Steve Leuty
mountain (eg a not so famous rider: Beat Breu). Beat then focused his
training on tt's and excells. His mountain climbing did sufer but his
tt's greatly improved. I think Lance new that climbing in the mountains
was a vital ingredient to winning the tour thus he mastered that skill
to perfection while maintaining his conditioning in the other areas of
racing.
Steve LEuty
Andre wrote:
>
> "Patrick Kavanagh" <Patrick...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:<a6djoi$kmr$1...@helle.btinternet.com>...
> > You know I see so many posts about Lance and the question of his superb
> > performances and I have to ask myself does nobody believe that a rider can
> > be clean and a winner?. I do and as for Lance there is something convincing
> > about him that I have yet to see in many other pro riders. As a Brit I do
> > admire his straight talking head on approach to the issues that are thrown
> > at him from many quarters and the way he picks out the journo's at the tour
> > who have tried to needle him. Lets be honest that stare is frightening!
> > Facts are facts and he was world champion at 21 and look at the video as I
> > have and see his cadence and see it was not slow, his win in La Fleche
> > Wallone and his determined stage wins all when the cancer was there. Its
> > only my view but he was destined to be a champ and the sneers and rumours
> > are from those filled with envy and jealousy. Ok over to you, lets have a
> > debate,
> > Patrick Kavanagh
> > Twyford
> > Berkshire
> > UK
> > www.readingcyclingclub.com
> Those who oppose your point of view are not all envious and jealous.
> It comes from the fact that Lance was never a climber and as soon as
> he got the drugs for cancer he was suddenly unbeatable up a mountain.
> He never even used to climb them, but instead, in the Tour, when the
> mountains came he would abandon and go home. His entourage has just
> been perfect in hiding the evidence. The stare is certainly drug
> induced.
>
> Andre
Brian Lafferty
--
"Tom Kunich" <tku...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1%Pi8.4716$P4.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> "Brian Lafferty" <jav...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:lLHi8.9899$Vx1.7...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > Testing negative proves little given the art of doping today.
>
> Can you explain this to us Brian?
I could, but I won't.
>
> > One can only
> > hope that Armstrong is clean but this can not be a certainty any more
> than
> > it can be a certainty that he is doping. All we can say is that he's
> never
> > tested positive and never been caught in posession of banned
> > substances----like Marco.
>
> Perhaps you mean "unlike Marco"?
Is there a charge for your editing serices (sic)? Actually, I don't know
that Marco has ever been caught with banned substances; not EPO. Is Insulin
on the UCI banned list......I don't recall that it is.
Brian Lafferty
Brian Lafferty
"Tom Kunich" <tku...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:YBPi8.4651$P4.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> What everyone knows is that you are an idiot. The substances that really
> work are detectable. Those that don't work are almost all detectable It is
> likely that most of the stuff used as a doping substance not only do not
> work but depress performances.
So Marco was able to win a Giro and TdF in the same year without effective
doping. My, but it all gets curiouser and curiouser.
Brian
Mike Murray
"Hellephant" <lager...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Armstrong is clean until proven not. But if people like to speculate over
> the question, I don't understand how anyone seriously can think that he is
> clean.
> Considering the facts:
> 1. Doping is used heavily in cycling (like in many other sports).
> 2. Doping is very effective.
> 3. Armstrong is superior.
>
> Armstrong is using forbidden products.
The logical error here is in statement #2. If doping were the only way to
become fast then the logic would be correct. If it is only one way out of
many then it only increases the likelihood. If it is of low effectiveness,
as is probably the case with all substance except for EPO, then the argument
makes little sense.
--
Mike Murray
Mike Murray
"Andre" <dead...@softhome.net> wrote:
> Picking out drug use through physiognimy is not too hard. For example:
> I can tell if someone is on weed or coke or heroin or uppers or
> downers or steroids just by their expression.
Or so you think. Do you have any objective testing of the accuracy of your
perception? This is something that I do as part of my job. Often drug
testing is negative in person that I am sure is high and positive in a
person I do not expect. I doubt that your perceptions are that much more
accurate.
--
Mike Murray MD
a&b
Can you elaborate? Just a hint on how you differentiate
various substances. You'd be really handy where I work, we
do 2400 screens a month. The money we could save...
bg
ps What if they're doing speedballs and a little bud to take
the edge off? Do you do multiple substances? What about OTC
stuff? If it's a prescribed drug can you still "see" it?
Robert Chung
>
> "Hellephant" <lager...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Armstrong is clean until proven not. But if people like to speculate over
> > the question, I don't understand how anyone seriously can think that he is
> > clean.
> > Considering the facts:
> > 1. Doping is used heavily in cycling (like in many other sports).
> > 2. Doping is very effective.
> > 3. Armstrong is superior.
> >
> > If you have little sense, then you understand that it's very likely that
> > Armstrong is using forbidden products.
>
> The logical error here is in statement #2.
I actually thought his conclusion that begins, "if you have
little sense," is true.
--Robert Chung
Alan J Bishop
logical thought.
The basis of the arguement is that only inferior riders dope and Armstrong is so
good that he doesn't need to dope and that he would be crazy to be caught
doping.
The arguement that only inferior riders dope is demonstrably false. Rominger is
implicated. Eddy Merkx is not clear. Tommy Simpson was a top level rider - he
died of dope. Pantani is not inferior (unless you argue that he took dope and
is therefore defined as inferior). Gianni Bugno is implicated. Even Indurain -
a real sportsman and champion - especially when compared to Armstrong - is not
considered clean (look at the times that Rominger and Indurain put down for the
hour records). Even Vandebrouke - he may be flake, but he is undeniably a
talented rider. Add your own candidates to the list.
Any of these riders would be crazy to be caught for doping. All of these riders
had the best available medical advice. Armstrong's medical advisor is tainted.
The other thread of your arguement is that he would be crazy to 'get caughjt
cheating and piss away your career'. But if your career is at risk, if you are
absolutely driven, if you are convinced that the opposition are doping, if you
believe that you have no career if you don't dope, then you will take the risk
of exposure.
Take off the rose coloured glasses - admit the possibility that your own
personal hero may be tainted. You and I and others have no way of knowing.
(I could get to like Armstrong if he wasn't rude, arrogant and ungracious - if
he was a Sportsman)
AJB
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
Alan J Bishop <alanj...@bigpond.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
3C8C9965...@bigpond.com...
> Your arguements border on blind faith - they are certainly not derived by
way of
> logical thought.
>
> The basis of the arguement is that only inferior riders dope and Armstrong
is so
> good that he doesn't need to dope and that he would be crazy to be caught
> doping.
>
> The arguement that only inferior riders dope is demonstrably false.
Rominger is
> implicated. Eddy Merkx is not clear. Tommy Simpson was a top level
rider - he
> died of dope. Pantani is not inferior (unless you argue that he took dope
and
> is therefore defined as inferior). Gianni Bugno is implicated. Even
Indurain -
> a real sportsman and champion - especially when compared to Armstrong - is
not
> considered clean (look at the times that Rominger and Indurain put down
for the
> hour records). Even Vandebrouke - he may be flake, but he is undeniably a
> talented rider. Add your own candidates to the list.
I agree with you and would like to add that if these riders were truly
inferior and only won because of doping, then doping would mean an
incredible increase in performance. Some people say that this cannot be the
case - EPO works to some degree, I guess, but it won't make you win the
tour.
My suspicion was roused by Armstrong's (and Ullrich's) ability to
recuperate. Perhaps this is 'lesser doping', as Voet has implied, not meant
to make you go faster directly, but to bring one's body back to the way it
was before the last mountain stage. Are such products allowed? I was amazed
by the fact that Armstrong and Ullrich could fight it out on the finishing
climbs day after day. Winning Alpe d'Huez should make a person tired,
wouldn't you think? How were they able to perform so well again at
Chamrousse the next day? Is it really so ridiculous and unfair to assume
that these people use medication to recuperate and prepare themselves?
<snip>
Jonathan.
Daniel Connelly
>
> Your arguements border on blind faith - they are certainly not derived by way of
> logical thought.
>
> The basis of the arguement is that only inferior riders dope and Armstrong is so
> good that he doesn't need to dope and that he would be crazy to be caught
> doping.
>
> The arguement that only inferior riders dope is demonstrably false. Rominger is
> implicated. Eddy Merkx is not clear. Tommy Simpson was a top level rider - he
> died of dope. Pantani is not inferior (unless you argue that he took dope and
> is therefore defined as inferior). Gianni Bugno is implicated. Even Indurain -
> a real sportsman and champion - especially when compared to Armstrong - is not
> considered clean (look at the times that Rominger and Indurain put down for the
> hour records). Even Vandebrouke - he may be flake, but he is undeniably a
> talented rider. Add your own candidates to the list.
Your implication of Indurain here is also demonstrably flawed.
You fall back to the old "all who are competitive must be cheats" line,
which you are using to justify the "all who are competitive must be cheats" line.
It's circular logic.
Your general point is valid, however, in that we just DON'T KNOW what Armstrong does.
He says he doesn't do anything illegal. Possibilities:
* he is what a vast majority would consider "clean".
* he does stuff which isn't illegal, but probably would be if it was well
known. I cannot find fault with this approach.
* he cheats, using things which are essentially undetectable, and
thus which are essentially unenforcable
* he cheats, taking great care to not be caught, but nevertheless
taking a measurable risk
Some consider altitude tents to be "cheating" against the spirit of cycling.
It must be noted that I saw a fat, over-aged, undertrained Stephen Roche dropping
guys in their 20's with sub-10% bodyfat on climbs at the Stephen Roche camp.
I think it's safe to say Roche isn't doping right now. It's easy to underestimate
just how strong the engines on guys at this level can be.
Dan
P.S. Suppose smoking cigarettes was found to improve short-term performance.
Would I be able to fault riders who thus chose to smoke cigarettes?
There's no way I'd smoke -- no way. But I couldn't fault them, as smoking
is legal. Instead, I'd suggest it be banned, as it's not in the best interests
of cycling and cyclists that riders be compelled to do something which causes
them harm, when that thing can be eliminated without compromising the sport.
It's like a helmet rule -- you're probably faster without one, so the
rule is in place to nominally improve rider safety, but one can't blame
riders who don't wear one if it isn't required.
I feel the same about the use of hypothetical means which are potentially harmful.
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
Brian Lafferty <jav...@earthlink.net> schreef in berichtnieuws
r0Si8.4925$P4.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
I don't think he used more or less doping than Armstrong. If you count all
the facts and what they directly indicate, no other conclusion is logical. I
know that it is fashionable to assume Marco won these races because of
doping, but the real evidence is lacking just as much as it is with
Armstrong.
In fact, I think that it was quite difficult to get enough dope in the 1998
tour - Voet's EPO was more than enough for his own team and others. Many
riders were searched and arrested. If Pantani used EPO, he was very
effective at acquiring and keeping it, especially in the situation of the
1998 tour. He also showed no fear of continuing the tour, unlike the Spanish
teams, who all quit the race. But then again, the same goes for Ullrich, and
I don't think he's clean.
But in 1998, I am not sure how much doping the riders still dared to carry
and use. It might have been the cleanest tour in years.
But alas, any argument that even remotely suggest that Pantani might be (or
was!) a good rider is not really welcome, is it?
Jonathan.
ronde champ
"Ken Papai" <k...@kenpapai.com> wrote in message
news:DqNi8.17449$q2.2236@sccrnsc01...
Dear Dipshit,
Doping is used by the best riders. Doping in cycling is a way of life.
Thanks,
Ronde Champ
Donald Munro
> It must be noted that I saw a fat, over-aged, undertrained Stephen Roche
dropping
> guys in their 20's with sub-10% bodyfat on climbs at the Stephen Roche
camp.
> I think it's safe to say Roche isn't doping right now. It's easy to
underestimate
> just how strong the engines on guys at this level can be.
Perhaps he fell into a cauldron full of EPO when he was a baby.
Ilan Vardi
> is therefore defined as inferior). Gianni Bugno is implicated. Even Indurain -
> a real sportsman and champion - especially when compared to Armstrong - is not
> considered clean (look at the times that Rominger and Indurain put down for the
> hour records).
There is some reason to believe that Rominger was implicated -- the
first thing
he did after his hour record was to thank Dr. Ferrari, who is now
clearly
implicated. On the other hand, you imply that Indurain is implicated
because
he recorded a very good time, in other words, that a good performance,
by
definition, is reason for suspicion. I assume that you are not
considering
his positive result for Albuterol (French federation only) as doping.
>
> (I could get to like Armstrong if he wasn't rude, arrogant and ungracious - if
> he was a Sportsman)
If you look at any book on etiquette or manners, you will find that
the
basic principle of politeness is trying to adapt to people and their
differing cultural values. For example, if you are at a formal dinner
and someone next to you uses the incorrect cutlery to eat his fish,
then the polite thing to do is for you to use your corresponding
utensil so this person will
not feel out of place. Therefore, calling someone
else "rude" is, by definition, rude. The same applies, by extension,
so
sportsmanship.
-ilan
Andre
You can doubt all you want. Yes, all my perceptions are objective, to
answer your question. It would seem my perceptions are more accurate.
Andre
Henry Chang
<lager...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Daniel Connelly wrote:
>> His effective use of altitude tents, quite legal, is an explanation for
>his ability
>> to compete with those using EPO.
>>
>> Dan
>
>What do you mean effective use? Do other use that tent less affective?
>If an altitude tent has the same effect as EPO, then why aren't everybody
>using them instead of EPO? That would be cheaper, safer and legal!!
It's not necessarily cheaper. An altitude tent costs $6000. Look up
EPO on some on-line pharmacy. It's not that expensive (relative to the
altitude tent).
Henry
Gerard Lanois
> It's not necessarily cheaper. An altitude tent costs $6000. Look up
> EPO on some on-line pharmacy. It's not that expensive (relative to the
> altitude tent).
Speed costs. How fast can you afford to go? I don't think the cash
money price should be the only factor. How about the toll your
body takes?
How easy is it to die or suffer irreversible effects from
using/abusing an altitude tent? (asphyxiation from a malfunction?
Can you get HAPE/HACE/AMS from using these things?)
How easy is it to die or suffer irreversible effects from
using/abusing EPO? (clotting?)
If you were given a choice between the two, which one would you
choose? Why? If you refuse to choose, what would you do instead?
Move to a higher elevation? Train more? Get a better coach?
What if you have already done all those things?
I wouldn't necessarily go for the monetarily cheaper option. It
would depend on the safety factor. How about convenenience too?
I think it is pretty easy to get ahold of an altitude tent. Isn't EPO
a controlled substance? Do they sell it over-the-counter in Tijuana?
-Gerard
Daniel Connelly
> Do they sell it over-the-counter in Tijuana?
WHERE????
What's the nearest airport?
Dan
Ilan Vardi
>
> My suspicion was roused by Armstrong's (and Ullrich's) ability to
> recuperate. Perhaps this is 'lesser doping', as Voet has implied, not meant
> to make you go faster directly, but to bring one's body back to the way it
> was before the last mountain stage. Are such products allowed? I was amazed
> by the fact that Armstrong and Ullrich could fight it out on the finishing
> climbs day after day. Winning Alpe d'Huez should make a person tired,
> wouldn't you think? How were they able to perform so well again at
> Chamrousse the next day? Is it really so ridiculous and unfair to assume
> that these people use medication to recuperate and prepare themselves?
But this was much more evident in the past. For example, I think it
was in
1997 (I'm too lazy to check) when Ullrich led out Zabel in Pau (I
think)
and did a one minute pull up to the final meters that strung out the
whole field completely, so was going very close to 60kph, so
essentially did a kilo effort. As you know, kilometer riders need days
if not weeks to recover. This
was done the day before the first big mountain stage.
Ullrich is definitely not doing this anymore. In my opinion, this
indicates
that there was some serious doping in 1997 which is not happening now.
-ilan
Ilan Vardi
> perception? This is something that I do as part of my job. Often drug
> testing is negative in person that I am sure is high and positive in a
> person I do not expect. I doubt that your perceptions are that much more
> accurate.
I don't quite understand your job. As I understand it, the people doing
the drug testing don't know who they are testing, and this ignorance is
encouraged in order to reduce the chances of expectations being fulfilled.
-ilan
Mike Murray
your perceptions and how you verify the accuracy?
--
Mike Murray
"Andre" <dead...@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:a7b15875.02031...@posting.google.com...
Carl Sundquist
"Ilan Vardi" <ila...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b26c09dc.02031...@posting.google.com...
>
> But this was much more evident in the past. For example, I think it
> was in
> 1997 (I'm too lazy to check) when Ullrich led out Zabel in Pau (I
> think)
> and did a one minute pull up to the final meters that strung out the
> whole field completely, so was going very close to 60kph, so
> essentially did a kilo effort. As you know, kilometer riders need days
> if not weeks to recover.
I think there is a lot of fallacy to this old legend. If it were true,
riders like Kopylov, Harnett, and Rosseau would not have been nearly as
successful in the sprints as they were following their kilo rides at worlds.
Mike Murray
tested material is done by a laboratory. I, therefore, have some objective
verification of my subjective perceptions. One must also recognize that
drug testing has very high false negative and significant false positive
rates. I would say that the predictive accuracy of clinical impression is
marginal at best with regards to this subject.
--
Mike Murray
"Ilan Vardi" <ila...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b26c09dc.02031...@posting.google.com...
Tom Kunich
news:ulmcyp...@NOSPAMlanois.com...
>
> How easy is it to die or suffer irreversible effects from
> using/abusing an altitude tent? (asphyxiation from a malfunction?
> Can you get HAPE/HACE/AMS from using these things?)
Almost impossible to get any serious injuries from the thing. It leaks a lot
of air and if the pump stops it fills with normal air.
No, it is the lower pressure that causes HAPE/HACE and AMS and not the
lowered oxygen content of the air in a tent. The air pressure in an altitude
tent is at outside pressure.
> How easy is it to die or suffer irreversible effects from
> using/abusing EPO? (clotting?)
VERY easy for a normally healthy person. Quite easy to abuse the stuff.
> If you were given a choice between the two, which one would you
> choose? Why? If you refuse to choose, what would you do instead?
> Move to a higher elevation? Train more? Get a better coach?
> What if you have already done all those things?
If you cannot get higher hematocrit from high altitude you probably can't
get it from EPO either. Living at altitude is really the way to go if you
are genetically gifted enough to be a good climber to begin with. When you
come down to normal altitude you feel supercharged for awhile. In big climbs
like in the Alps I would expect you to not feel the burn at high altitude
that even those with EPO enhanced hematocrit experience. There was this
thing about training at altitude that sticks in my mind -- your body stops
making excess lactic acid for some reason.
Gerard Lanois
> Gerard Lanois wrote:
>
> > Do they sell it over-the-counter in Tijuana?
>
>
> WHERE????
http://www.ellis2ca.com/buying.html
> What's the nearest airport?
http://www.sandiegosouth.com/tijuana.asp
"Airports
Six airlines service the Tijuana airport. Tijuana's International
Airport is the most important airport in the northwestern area of
Mexico, offering 120 daily flights to and from Tijuana. Also, San
Diego's Lindbergh Field Airport is located just 30 minutes away from
the Otay Mesa port of entry and it offers 250 daily flights connecting
to all points in the U. S. continent as well as international
destination. San Diego's Brown Field is located in Otay-Mesa, used
mainly for cargo and private planes."
-Gerard
Tom Kunich
news:a6i77e$6po$1...@reader06.wxs.nl...
>
> recuperate. Perhaps this is 'lesser doping', as Voet has implied, not
meant
> to make you go faster directly, but to bring one's body back to the way it
> was before the last mountain stage. Are such products allowed? I was
amazed
> by the fact that Armstrong and Ullrich could fight it out on the finishing
> climbs day after day. Winning Alpe d'Huez should make a person tired,
> wouldn't you think? How were they able to perform so well again at
> Chamrousse the next day? Is it really so ridiculous and unfair to assume
> that these people use medication to recuperate and prepare themselves?
In one of the Junior Nationals in the USA in Texas the temperature was in
the 90's and the humidity was pretty low. The racing was fast and furious
and the amount of liquid intake that the juniors could receive was limited
to a single feed zone on a 20 mile loop.
After the race there were several dozen kids lifted off of their bikes and
taken to the infirmary where they were given hydration via IV.
You'll find that the recovery of these guys, aside from their own highly
remarkable natural recovery rates, is aided by IV drips of water and glucose
solutions. Many riders cannot eat enough on such long, hard stages to gain
it all back before the next day.
I think this was the thing that Dan Connelly was talking about when he said,
"* he does stuff which isn't illegal, but probably would be if it was well
known." It isn't that there is anything illegal about this practice but it
is sort of outside of the spirit of the regulations.
Tom Kunich
>
> But alas, any argument that even remotely suggest that Pantani might be
(or
> was!) a good rider is not really welcome, is it?
Everyone knows that Pantani used to be the best climber in the world. But
there most certainly is room to doubt his performances such as his great
move into quite competitive time trialing -- something that super climb
specialist usually aren't good at.
Was Pantani a great racer -- you bet. Was he a Tour winner without
augmentation? That is most certainly a question settled only by him.
Hellephant
> It must be noted that I saw a fat, over-aged, undertrained Stephen Roche
dropping
> guys in their 20's with sub-10% bodyfat on climbs at the Stephen Roche
camp.
> I think it's safe to say Roche isn't doping right now. It's easy to
underestimate
> just how strong the engines on guys at this level can be.
Ooh that horrible Stephen Roche. He was working as a commentator for
Eurosport at the 98 Tour. They way he handled the doping problems was so
insulting for the viewer. He didn't want to talk about it, even if it was
one of the biggest scandal in cycling history. The only thing that he was
upset about was the way the French police acted.
And I wouldn't say it safe to say Roche isn't doping right now. He probably
got used to doping, like many others, during his career (Wasn't Stephen
Roche's name in Ferrari's computer as well). It's probably hard not to use
the old products when you want form. Hell, that Willy Voet used doping, and
he didn't even race.
Hellephant
> > 2. Doping is very effective.
>
> This is most certainly not true. Under special circumstances doping can be
> effective. Remember that East Germany went about doping in a scientific
and
> total manner. Yet they achieved spotty results from their programs. Now
you
> are suggesting that a bunch of Willy Voets know how to do things that
entire
> state sponsored programs with large scientific staffs and state sponsored
> budgets were unable to do. Sure.
Spotty results??? Are you crazy, they were unbeatable in many sports (but
the women got beard, and the men breast). Many people even think that all
the world records from the eighties should be erased, because they are
unbeatable today.
And what about those cyclist who talked about their experience with
forbidden products. When they say they were flying with them, and dying
without them, are they lying?
Stella Hackell
> Those who oppose your point of view are not all envious and jealous.
> It comes from the fact that Lance was never a climber and as soon as
> he got the drugs for cancer he was suddenly unbeatable up a mountain.
Yes indeed, he walked right out of chemotherapy and began blasting up
the mountains. Sure.
> The stare is certainly drug
> induced.
This is silly. Anyone who has an intimidating stare must be
on drugs? For all you know, Lance was winking at Jan.
Tom Kunich
This history of all sports is like that. Do you suppose that all sports have
everyone doping?
The facts are that those who dope are generally those who cannot naturally
achieve the peak that naturally talented player achieve. It is likely that
EPO twisted those results a great deal because at one point you simply
couldn't win with a normal hematocrit. Hell, for all we know, Marco Pantani
was clean until his big accident where he almost lost his leg. Before that
he was a great GREAT climber, after he returned he was too good at
everything. We'll never know but perhaps Pantani could have been the
greatest climber ever and clean as a whistle.
There are certain limits to human achievement and adding dope to someone
isn't going to make them achieve more. And aside from your claim that the
records from the 80's are unbeatable, most have long since fallen.
The closer you are to the "perfect" athlete I would suppose the less effect
that dope will have on you.
Not to mention that different drugs are specific to different things. EPO
sure doesn't do anything for someone who naturally has close to 50%
hematocrit all the time. I am one of these BTW. Looking back through the
records mine is almost always at or very near 48%. This would indicate that
after a hard days ride with some dehydration I am above 50%.
If you have someone that has a high testosterone production will anabolic
steroids improve his recovery rate or simply destroy the hormone balance of
his body? Why do these drugs work well for some body builders and not for
others? It isn't a case of more = better. Cindy Olivera used so much drugs
that she said it took 30 minutes to inject it all. All she really achieved
from that was severe physical disabilities.
So there is every reason to believe that natural athletes can do as well or
even better than dopers.
Tom Kunich
news:a9c69eb4.02031...@posting.google.com...
> > induced.
>
> This is silly. Anyone who has an intimidating stare must be
> on drugs? For all you know, Lance was winking at Jan.
"Hey Big Boy, what are you doing after the race?"
Donald Munro
> But this was much more evident in the past. For example, I think it
> was in
> 1997 (I'm too lazy to check) when Ullrich led out Zabel in Pau (I
> think)
> and did a one minute pull up to the final meters that strung out the
> whole field completely, so was going very close to 60kph, so
> essentially did a kilo effort. As you know, kilometer riders need days
> if not weeks to recover. This
> was done the day before the first big mountain stage.
> Ullrich is definitely not doing this anymore. In my opinion, this
> indicates
> that there was some serious doping in 1997 which is not happening now.
Do these track kilometer riders do stage race type training which is geared
towards training the body to recover faster ? Do they have access to all
the recovery techniques (not including drugs) that the Tour riders have such
as carbohydrate drips ?
Donald
Ilan Vardi
after his new sub 1 minute record. In any case, such extreme efforts
seem a little on the superhuman side, right before the first mountain stage.
I also seem to recall that Zabel was then led out by Riis who did a full
sprint for 200 meters.
-ilan
"Carl Sundquist" <car...@cox-internet.com> wrote in message news:<u8qbth5...@corp.supernews.com>...
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
Tom Kunich <tku...@earthlink.net> schreef in berichtnieuws
KRbj8.8276$P4.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
I really don't understand why Pantani is so special in that regard. After
all, I am just as amazed by Lance's incredible increase in climbing ability.
But that apologism that he is granted is immense, even though there appears
to be some admittance that he uses stuff that perhaps borders on doping. And
his association with Ferrari 'proves nothing'. I just don't get it.
Pantani seems to be a special case. He still holds the speed record up the
Alpe d'Huez - a fact that aggravated Lance supporters to no end. The
argument was that all Pantani's achievements have a 'big question mark' over
them, and therefore Lance was actually the best. Unbelievably childish. All
cycling achievements have a big question mark over them. I don't believe
for a minute that Indurain or Lemond did not use EPO, but frankly I don't
care. The only sad thing is that people like Mottet could not get closer to
the podium because they refused to use it, while others, like Winnen, were
so fed up with EPO that they quit.
Now, altitude tents are the fashion. Not all teams can afford them, which is
an argument sometimes applied to EPO (a product that is apparently cheaper,
or so is suggested in this thread). But tents are not forbidden, even though
EPO use might be just as harmless.
All this leads me to the conclusion that criticism of dopers is not
motivated by love of the sport itself and a real urge to keep it healthy. It
is mostly a tool to create suspicion around cyclists people do not like.
Armstrong might have used dope, Pantani used dope, Virenque got away too
easy, Frigo should be banned for life, European riders are all dopers,
Vandenbroucke did not get a fair chance, etc. I do not give a damn about
these arguments. They do not help cycling at all.
I think that in Pantani's case, his expulsion from the Giro (which made, of
all people, Ivan Gotti the winner) was a serious mental blow, that had more
influence on his achievements than any amount of dope can ever compensate.
He's been struggling ever since, which is a great shame.
Still, for some reason I cannot fathom, his team's management still has
faith in him. In fact, they chose to concentrate even more on him. Perhaps
this is because many tifosi are still loyal to him, which makes his name
comercially interesting. But that cannot go on forever. He could have
retired and make some money doing commercials. Perhaps he can still win the
giro or even the tour. That would be nice. That would mean he can overcome
an obstacle that is bigger than cancer, broken bones and doping accusations.
Jonathan.
Robert Chung
> > there most certainly is room to doubt his performances such as his great
> > move into quite competitive time trialing -- something that super climb
> > specialist usually aren't good at.
>
> all, I am just as amazed by Lance's incredible increase in climbing ability.
If you are amazed then you do not understand that hill climbing
is mostly a matter of power-to-weight while flat TT'ing is mostly
a matter of power-to-aero-drag. We know with certainty that
Armstrong lost a lot of weight. On the other hand, to improve on
a flat TT either Pantani's drag decreased or his average power
had to increase. These two cases are not as comparable as you
make them out to be.
--Robert Chung
Alan J Bishop
Ilan Vardi wrote:
Huh?? So when can I say that I think that someone is rude? Ilan Vardi's normally faultless logic
just tripped up!
Regardless of whether I am rude, and regardless of what sort a sportsman I might be - I still don't
like Armstrong and I don't think he is a great racing cyclist. If Frank van den Brouke (sp?) (pre
drugs scandal) was as successful as Armstrong and a US cyclist, the would FdvB be anything other
than rude, brash and unpleasant?
--
Sue and Alan Bishop
PO Box 156
Exmouth WA 6707
Ph/fax 08 9949 2950
Robert Chung
> For example, if you are at a formal dinner and someone next
> to you uses the incorrect cutlery to eat his fish, then the
> polite thing to do is for you to use your corresponding
> utensil so this person will not feel out of place.
There's cutlery specific to eating fish? Damn. So supposing I use
the wrong thing, and the woman next to me uses the wrong thing in
empathy. What does the guy next to her do? Is this like proof by
induction?
Did you eat that California "flying" fish with special cutlery?
--Robert Chung, boorish fish-eater
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
Robert Chung <nos...@nospam.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
3C8DE8B4...@nospam.com...
This proves exactly what I mean. When it concerns Armstrong, his apologists
are always quick to react. There is no question that a small, light rider
can be a good time trialist - unless you assume that Simoni and Botero are
also doped. At the same time, simply attributing Armstrong's miraculous
increase in climbing ability to 'weight loss' is too simplistic. Heavy
riders can become effective climbers. It is even more remarkable that
Pantani's and Armstrong's climbing techniques are similar when compared to
Ullrich's, for example.
There is always an explanation that can give some rationale to why a rider
suddenly becomes better in any aspect of a grand tour. That is not just
applicable to Botero, but also for Van Petegem, Jalabert and even
Blijlevens. But again, apologists are not lining up to defend Pantani in
this way. In fact, nobody is even looking why he could time-trial
effectively. 'EPO' is considered explanation enough, even though I seriously
doubt that one can become really good at something just by using dope.
And so we're back at where we started. Dope explains something, but not
everything. This agains leads to the conclusion that Armstrong surely trains
effectively and uses his altitude tents to his best advantage, but that
there might also be doping for recuperation or endurance involved. And that
pantani probably uses doping, but that he surely also trained effectively.
The difference is very slim indeed, only the order in which the things are
mentioned. Added to this is the slim evidence of any real wrongdoing in the
tour. Both tested negative, what else is there to say?
Other than personal preference, there is really no reason to defend or
specifically attack any of them.
Jonathan.
Ilan Vardi
>
> Huh?? So when can I say that I think that someone is rude? Ilan Vardi's normally faultless logic
> just tripped up!
You can think whatever you want. Expressing it openly is another
question.
As I stated, calling someone rude is itself rude. By implying that you
are
rude, I am also violating strict principles of politeness, however, I
tried to mitigate this to some extent by explaining my point of view.
> Regardless of whether I am rude, and regardless of what sort a sportsman I might be - I still don't
> like Armstrong and I don't think he is a great racing cyclist.
I think that I have been able to extract a more precise and honest
evaluation from you. Obviously, your personal view is acceptable.
If Frank van den Brouke (sp?) (pre
> drugs scandal) was as successful as Armstrong and a US cyclist, the would FdvB be anything other
> than rude, brash and unpleasant?
I'm not sure if you've expressed this correctly. There is a tradition
of
rude and brash US athletes and in my opinion this has improved the
state of professional sports. In particular, I thought that John
McEnroe
did a good thing with respect to the stuck up atmosphere at Wimbledon
(he was the first champion not to be invited by the organising
committee),
and injected some individuality into the sport, allowing tennis
players
more self-expression.
In general, my view is that the person who wins an event should be
given complete freedom of expression, this is being one of his
rewards. In
particular, I strongly oppose the suspension of protesting black
athletes
at the 1968 Olympics. Of course, you opinion may differ...
-ilan
Kyle Legate
> I think that in Pantani's case, his expulsion from the Giro (which made, of
> all people, Ivan Gotti the winner) was a serious mental blow, that had more
> influence on his achievements than any amount of dope can ever compensate.
> He's been struggling ever since, which is a great shame.
>
> Still, for some reason I cannot fathom, his team's management still has
> faith in him. In fact, they chose to concentrate even more on him. Perhaps
>
This is something I never understood. By reading reports on Cyclingnews
and looking through results it seems none of the MU boys are given any
free rein to achieve any results. Never in a breakaway at any point during
a stage, never mixing it up in the sprints, either intermediate or final,
if Marco is in the fourth group half an hour behind the leaders there are
the rest of the team also, surrounding him in the results like some kind
of yellow cocoon. I fail to see why anyone would want to ride with such an
outfit.
... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
leg...@mcmaster.ca Kyle Legate leg...@hotmail.com
Tower of Tongues:Thursday PM:10:30-11:30 EDT:http://cfmu.mcmaster.ca
moon musick:ritual:IDM:experimental(electronica):minimalism:glitch
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
Alex
ronde champ wrote:
> "Ken Papai" <k...@kenpapai.com> wrote in message
> news:DqNi8.17449$q2.2236@sccrnsc01...
>
>>"Hellephant" <lager...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:u4Ei8.13668$O5.3...@nntpserver.swip.net...
>>
>>>"Ryan Fisher" <gte...@prism.gatech.edu> skrev i meddelandet
>>>news:a6eq73$pbm$1...@news-int.gatech.edu...
>>>
>>>>>If someone, who new (sic) if Armstrong was clean or not, came up to
>>>>>
>>you
>>
>>>>and put a
>>>>
>>>>>gun in your mouth. That person then asked you: "do you believe
>>>>>
>>Armstrong
>>
>>>>is
>>>>
>>>>>clean? If your answer is wrong, I'll kill you". Would you guess that
>>>>>Armstrong is clean!!!! I don't think you would.
>>>>>
>>>>what in the hell kind of situation is this...... seriously man. what
>>>>
> the
>
>>>>hell? Less TV/Movies, more bike.
>>>>
>>>You are right. Especially since I don't master the English language.
>>>But I'll try one more time.
>>>
>>>Armstrong is clean until proven not. But if people like to speculate
>>>
> over
>
>>>the question, I don't understand how anyone seriously can think that he
>>>
> is
>
>>>clean.
>>>Considering the facts:
>>>1. Doping is used heavily in cycling (like in many other sports).
>>>2. Doping is very effective.
>>>3. Armstrong is superior.
>>>
>>And, doping is used by the inferior, the weaker
>>to at least have a foothold with their superiors.
>>
>
>
> Dear Dipshit,
>
> Doping is used by the best riders. Doping in cycling is a way of life.
>
> Thanks,
> Ronde Champ
>
>
>
Well said papa.
Alex
-------------
Robert Chung
> > is mostly a matter of power-to-weight while flat TT'ing is mostly
> > a matter of power-to-aero-drag. We know with certainty that
> > Armstrong lost a lot of weight. On the other hand, to improve on
> > a flat TT either Pantani's drag decreased or his average power
> > had to increase. These two cases are not as comparable as you
> > make them out to be.
>
> This proves exactly what I mean. When it concerns Armstrong, his apologists
> are always quick to react. There is no question that a small, light rider
> can be a good time trialist - unless you assume that Simoni and Botero are
> also doped. At the same time, simply attributing Armstrong's miraculous
> increase in climbing ability to 'weight loss' is too simplistic. Heavy
> riders can become effective climbers.
Your persecution complex is betraying you. I am neither an
Armstrong apologist nor a Pantani detractor. I've made no claims
about Simoni, Botero, or doping. I merely pointed out that the
two cases you cited were not comparable.
--Robert Chung
Henry Chang
<alanj...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>Huh?? So when can I say that I think that someone is rude? Ilan Vardi's normally faultless logic
>just tripped up!
>
>Regardless of whether I am rude, and regardless of what sort a sportsman I might be - I still don't
>like Armstrong and I don't think he is a great racing cyclist. If Frank van den Brouke (sp?) (pre
>drugs scandal) was as successful as Armstrong and a US cyclist, the would FdvB be anything other
>than rude, brash and unpleasant?
You are entitled to your opinion of Armstrong, but you analogy of him
to Frank Vandenbroucke doesn't hold up. Those two personalities are
very different - Vandenbroucke isn't "rude, brash or unpleasant", he
just can't keep his life together. Vandenbroucke seems to be quite
popular with his peers on a personal level.
If you want to take a negative view of both Armstrong and
Vandenbroucke, their personalities are quite opposite in that
Armstrong clearly has his life together while not being the most
popular with some people while Vandenbroucke is a professional
disaster, but is otherwise well-liked.
Henry
Henry Chang
<jonath...@planet.nlnospam> wrote:
>
>This proves exactly what I mean. When it concerns Armstrong, his apologists
>are always quick to react. There is no question that a small, light rider
>can be a good time trialist - unless you assume that Simoni and Botero are
>also doped. At the same time, simply attributing Armstrong's miraculous
>increase in climbing ability to 'weight loss' is too simplistic.
It may be simplistic, but it is a fact that the best way to become a
better climber is to lose weight.
Look at the wattage to kilo ratios. If any pro rider loses 10 kilos,
damn right they're gonna go uphill fast. That may not seem like night
and day to a couch potato, but the top level is already very close in
ability and if you throw a 10 kilo weight loss into the mix . . . it's
quite evident.
Henry
PHyatt1962
do jealous european riders know what the inside of a weight room looks like?
Lay off the drug scandal....if he had been on something, the witch-hunting
French would have certainly found something...
PH
Ilan Vardi
>
> There's cutlery specific to eating fish? Damn. So supposing I use
> the wrong thing, and the woman next to me uses the wrong thing in
> empathy. What does the guy next to her do? Is this like proof by
> induction?
If he also uses a wrong knife, but it's a different wrong knife than
you are using, then she has a problem. This brings up the "prime
mover"
problem of politeness: You are well brought up, but who started it
all?
Speaking of which, French parents regularly scold their children by
telling
them that they are "mal eleve," which means poorly brought up. I
brought
this up to one of my computer science colleagues when I visited him
and his family and was witness to this. He didn't seem to have a
problem with the self-referential aspects.
> Did you eat that California "flying" fish with special cutlery?
I left the fish on the road. I was still miles from home and didn't
have
anything to store it in. By the way, one way to tell if people you're
riding with are bonking is when they start eyeing the road kill.
> --Robert Chung, boorish fish-eater
Isn't there an Andrews Sisters song which goes
When I come home late at night,
I get my favorite dish, fish.
Hold tight, Hold tight,
I like my seafood, oh Mama,
Shrimps and rice, it's very nice
-ilan
Anthony G. Gough
someone else they must be cheating. If someone in school was smarter than you
did you assume that they cheated?
What makes a champion is the ability to do more, more often than the other guy.
Find a runner from forty years ago that could compete today. Humans are evolving
and maybe Lance is just one step ahead.
rockant
"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" wrote:
> Alan J Bishop <alanj...@bigpond.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
> 3C8C9965...@bigpond.com...
> > Your arguements border on blind faith - they are certainly not derived by
> way of
> > logical thought.
> >
> > The basis of the arguement is that only inferior riders dope and Armstrong
> is so
> > good that he doesn't need to dope and that he would be crazy to be caught
> > doping.
> >
> > The arguement that only inferior riders dope is demonstrably false.
> Rominger is
> > implicated. Eddy Merkx is not clear. Tommy Simpson was a top level
> rider - he
> > died of dope. Pantani is not inferior (unless you argue that he took dope
> and
> > is therefore defined as inferior). Gianni Bugno is implicated. Even
> Indurain -
> > a real sportsman and champion - especially when compared to Armstrong - is
> not
> > considered clean (look at the times that Rominger and Indurain put down
> for the
> > hour records). Even Vandebrouke - he may be flake, but he is undeniably a
> > talented rider. Add your own candidates to the list.
>
> I agree with you and would like to add that if these riders were truly
> inferior and only won because of doping, then doping would mean an
> incredible increase in performance. Some people say that this cannot be the
> case - EPO works to some degree, I guess, but it won't make you win the
> tour.
>
> My suspicion was roused by Armstrong's (and Ullrich's) ability to
> recuperate. Perhaps this is 'lesser doping', as Voet has implied, not meant
> to make you go faster directly, but to bring one's body back to the way it
> was before the last mountain stage. Are such products allowed? I was amazed
> by the fact that Armstrong and Ullrich could fight it out on the finishing
> climbs day after day. Winning Alpe d'Huez should make a person tired,
> wouldn't you think? How were they able to perform so well again at
> Chamrousse the next day? Is it really so ridiculous and unfair to assume
> that these people use medication to recuperate and prepare themselves?
>
> <snip>
>
> Jonathan.
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
> "Jonathan v.d. Sluis" wrote:
> >
> > Robert Chung <nos...@nospam.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
> > > If you are amazed then you do not understand that hill climbing
> > > is mostly a matter of power-to-weight while flat TT'ing is mostly
> > > a matter of power-to-aero-drag. We know with certainty that
> > > Armstrong lost a lot of weight. On the other hand, to improve on
> > > a flat TT either Pantani's drag decreased or his average power
> > > had to increase. These two cases are not as comparable as you
> > > make them out to be.
> >
> > This proves exactly what I mean. When it concerns Armstrong, his
apologists
> > are always quick to react. There is no question that a small, light
rider
> > can be a good time trialist - unless you assume that Simoni and Botero
are
> > also doped. At the same time, simply attributing Armstrong's miraculous
> > increase in climbing ability to 'weight loss' is too simplistic. Heavy
> > riders can become effective climbers.
<snip>
> I merely pointed out that the
> two cases you cited were not comparable.
And I pointed out in what way they were comparable. That's all I have to say
about it.
Jonathan
>
> --Robert Chung
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
PHyatt1962 <phyat...@aol.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
20020312124607...@mb-ch.aol.com...
> How about Lance and the Bigger Question:
>
> do jealous european riders know what the inside of a weight room looks
like?
[Here we go again.]
I don't know. Do jealous Asian riders know it?
Jonathan.
Brad Anders
>
> When I come home late at night,
> I get my favorite dish, fish.
> Hold tight, Hold tight,
> I like my seafood, oh Mama,
> Shrimps and rice, it's very nice
Well, it doesn't have the same obscurity as Kelly Beard's quoting of
lyrics from "Gates of Delirium" from Yes, but it has it's own charm,
doesn't it?
Brad Anders
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
Kyle Legate <leg...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca> schreef in berichtnieuws
Pine.SOL.4.33.02031...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca...
> > Still, for some reason I cannot fathom, his team's management still has
> > faith in him. In fact, they chose to concentrate even more on him.
Perhaps
> >
> This is something I never understood. By reading reports on Cyclingnews
> and looking through results it seems none of the MU boys are given any
> free rein to achieve any results. Never in a breakaway at any point during
> a stage, never mixing it up in the sprints, either intermediate or final,
> if Marco is in the fourth group half an hour behind the leaders there are
> the rest of the team also, surrounding him in the results like some kind
> of yellow cocoon. I fail to see why anyone would want to ride with such an
> outfit.
For some reason they still have faith in him. I guess. Perhaps his training
results are good. I know I would not trust him to win more races, even
though I'd like it to be true.
The more promising MU riders have left the team - Velo, De Paoli, Astarloa,
Mondini. There were rumours that they were going to contract Rumsas,
Savoldelli and Elli, but none of them ended up in the team. Of their new
contracts, I know only Sgambelluri, who is reasonably good, I suppose. It's
a shame they did not contract Rumsas: he is a potential grand tour winner.
It remains to be seen if he can gain some opportunities within Lampre. As a
'reserve' for Pantani he would have had good chances. After all, in last
year's giro Velo suddenly became the team leader, while in the Vuelta it was
De Paoli, if I am not mistaken. If the pirate does not regain his old glory,
teammates only need to wait before he gives up. That could be a better
prospect than working for Simoni.
Jonathan.
Tom Kunich
>
> Tom Kunich <tku...@earthlink.net> schreef in berichtnieuws
> KRbj8.8276$P4.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > "Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <jonath...@planet.nlnospam> wrote in message
> > news:a6i7m9$6uk$1...@reader06.wxs.nl...
> > >
> > > But alas, any argument that even remotely suggest that Pantani might
be
> > (or
> > > was!) a good rider is not really welcome, is it?
> >
> > Everyone knows that Pantani used to be the best climber in the world.
But
> > there most certainly is room to doubt his performances such as his great
> > move into quite competitive time trialing -- something that super climb
> > specialist usually aren't good at.
> >
> > Was Pantani a great racer -- you bet. Was he a Tour winner without
> > augmentation? That is most certainly a question settled only by him.
>
> I really don't understand why Pantani is so special in that regard. After
> all, I am just as amazed by Lance's incredible increase in climbing
ability.
And I am amazed that you are amazed. Lance ALWAYS had absolutely stunning
power climbing ability. He also had a fairly middle of the road power to
weight ratio on long climbs. After taking off almost 20% of his weight and
almost all of it in his upper body I would be more surprised if he didn't
become a top climber.
Have you ever bothered to look at how Lance typically won a race in the
past? He would attack on a stiff climb and jerk out minutes on the group in
seconds. It looked like he was shot out of a cannon.
At 200 lbs I can barely climb. I can be passed by Ronde Champ and Gerard
Lanois. At 180 I can keep up with fairly high class climbers and I am
approaching retirement.
> But that apologism that he is granted is immense, even though there
appears
> to be some admittance that he uses stuff that perhaps borders on doping.
And
> his association with Ferrari 'proves nothing'. I just don't get it.
We are discussing the ethical consideration of using altitude tents WHICH
ARE COMPLETELY LEGAL. What makes you think that because Ferrari prescribes
dope for one rider he does so for all his patients?
I ask you this: pretend that you are a doctor and you have a professional
feeling for your racer/patients. When one tells you that he MUST put in
better performances to retain his job wouldn't you interpret that to mean
that he intended to use drugs? And knowing that, what is your ethical
responsibility? To turn a blind eye knowing that non-professionals might
easily kill or seriously injure themselves with self administered drug
programs? Or do you develop the drug program for him that is going to
accomplish what he wants without harming his health? Exactly what are YOUR
ethics and moral values going to tell you?
Dr. Ferrari has been quoted widely and I have read interviews with him. The
man strikes me as a professional of very high intelligence and certainly is
one of the most knowledgeable people in the world concerning physical
output. I think that you are portraying him as nothing more than a drug
pusher.
> Pantani seems to be a special case. He still holds the speed record up the
> Alpe d'Huez - a fact that aggravated Lance supporters to no end.
Why does that agravate us? I haven't seen any signs of this aggravation you
seem to have detected. In fact, my take on the Lance/Marco story is that
they are playing a game to give Pantani a few more years in the spotlight.
My guess is that Armstrong is playing along with Pantani.
> Now, altitude tents are the fashion. Not all teams can afford them, which
is
> an argument sometimes applied to EPO (a product that is apparently
cheaper,
> or so is suggested in this thread). But tents are not forbidden, even
though
> EPO use might be just as harmless.
Let's get this straight -- EPO use IS NOT HARMLESS. It took several years
and many dead bodies to determine a protocol that would allow normally
healthy individuals to take this stuff. It also requires a good deal of
other drugs injected into the body to stave off lethal blood clotting.
Tom Kunich
news:3c8e3077....@news1.news.adelphia.net...
>
> If you want to take a negative view of both Armstrong and
> Vandenbroucke, their personalities are quite opposite in that
> Armstrong clearly has his life together while not being the most
> popular with some people while Vandenbroucke is a professional
> disaster, but is otherwise well-liked.
Few people liked Hinault and few people liked Merckx when they were racing.
But somehow Armstrong is supposed to be as universally loved as Indurain
was.
Tom Kunich
>
> This proves exactly what I mean. When it concerns Armstrong, his
apologists
> are always quick to react. There is no question that a small, light rider
> can be a good time trialist - unless you assume that Simoni and Botero are
> also doped.
Am I to understand that you are comparing Pantani's physique with Simoni's?
> At the same time, simply attributing Armstrong's miraculous
> increase in climbing ability to 'weight loss' is too simplistic. Heavy
> riders can become effective climbers. It is even more remarkable that
> Pantani's and Armstrong's climbing techniques are similar when compared to
> Ullrich's, for example.
Sorry, I just watched my tape of the 2000 Tour de France and Pantani and
Armstrong climb quite differently.
> There is always an explanation that can give some rationale to why a rider
> suddenly becomes better in any aspect of a grand tour.
Indurain went from mediocre to invincible by losing 12 kilos. Armstrong was
close to Indurain with 10 kg more weight on him than he presently carries.
Tom Kunich
news:Pine.SOL.4.33.02031...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca...
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
>
> > I think that in Pantani's case, his expulsion from the Giro (which made,
of
> > all people, Ivan Gotti the winner) was a serious mental blow, that had
more
> > influence on his achievements than any amount of dope can ever
compensate.
> > He's been struggling ever since, which is a great shame.
> >
> > Still, for some reason I cannot fathom, his team's management still has
> > faith in him. In fact, they chose to concentrate even more on him.
Perhaps
> >
> This is something I never understood. By reading reports on Cyclingnews
> and looking through results it seems none of the MU boys are given any
> free rein to achieve any results. Never in a breakaway at any point during
> a stage, never mixing it up in the sprints, either intermediate or final,
> if Marco is in the fourth group half an hour behind the leaders there are
> the rest of the team also, surrounding him in the results like some kind
> of yellow cocoon. I fail to see why anyone would want to ride with such an
> outfit.
Marco keeps his sponsor on the front page and they probably see a large
increase in revenues due to him. In some cases, any publicity is good
publicity. Especially, I think, in Pantani's case where it probably looks,
in the Italian press, as if they rest of the world is picking on him.
As for other riders -- come one Kyle, you know that money speaks volumes.
Kyle Legate
> As for other riders -- come one Kyle, you know that money speaks volumes.
>
Results speak louder than money when it comes to a rider's future.
Hovering around Pantani like a bunch of gnats won't give them many
bargaining chips when negotiating a contract with another team.
Andre
> Would you care to delineate the method that you use to objectively test
> your perceptions and how you verify the accuracy?
>
> --
> Mike Murray
>
> "Andre" <dead...@softhome.net> wrote in message
> news:a7b15875.02031...@posting.google.com...
> > "Mike Murray" <mike....@obra.org> wrote in message
> news:<zmSi8.17694$af7.15493@rwcrnsc53>...
> > > "Andre" <dead...@softhome.net> wrote:
> > > > Picking out drug use through physiognimy is not too hard. For example:
> > > > I can tell if someone is on weed or coke or heroin or uppers or
> > > > downers or steroids just by their expression.
> > >
> > > Or so you think. Do you have any objective testing of the accuracy of
> your
> > > perception? This is something that I do as part of my job. Often drug
> > > testing is negative in person that I am sure is high and positive in a
> > > person I do not expect. I doubt that your perceptions are that much more
> > > accurate.
> >
> > You can doubt all you want. Yes, all my perceptions are objective, to
> > answer your question. It would seem my perceptions are more accurate.
> >
> > Andre
I don't test my perceptions, since I trust them: and I trust them through eperience.
I verify the accuracy through the "Socratic Method."
Andre