Lance Armstrong on Joe Rogan's Podcast

casual watcher wrote:

yawn wrote:

Ask Mr. Obvious, he thinks he know stuff. Most poster of a certain age have similar beliefs. It's as though we are not allowed to question these sacred beliefs. That's the real reason why we have a doping problem.

No, I'm asking you. Why do you keep talking about power outputs being the same? What does that have to do with EPO?

It is widely believed that EPO allows a cyclist to produce much more power, but it just isn't true.

Isn't that obvious that that is what I meant?

casual watcher wrote:

yawn wrote:

Ask Mr. Obvious, he thinks he know stuff. Most poster of a certain age have similar beliefs. It's as though we are not allowed to question these sacred beliefs. That's the real reason why we have a doping problem.

No, I'm asking you. Why do you keep talking about power outputs being the same? What does that have to do with EPO?

It doesn't have anything at all to do w/ EPO. The link he posted is entirely irrelevant.

bad guy wrote:

I think something that people are missing here is what Lance did to other cyclists and reporters who were whistle-blowers or who did not agree with the doping. Through lies and slander he DESTROYED their careers and their reputations. He kept up those lies for a decade. More than anything else this makes me sick. He gets no excuses for that, I don't care how great an athlete he is/was or the argument about other people using PEDs too. He was a terrible person and got exactly what he deserved.

Like Christophe Bassons you mean? He was just as obsessed with his hematocrit as Lance was. He would train at altitude and his hematocrit would go up, and he would become super confident, not realising that he actually had the same number of red blood cells. And two weeks later his hemotocrit would go down again, and so would his confidence. But the number of RBCs was still the same.

Most cyclists still don't understand this. Their coaches and doctors don't either.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

casual watcher wrote:

No, I'm asking you. Why do you keep talking about power outputs being the same? What does that have to do with EPO?

It doesn't have anything at all to do w/ EPO. The link he posted is entirely irrelevant.

What are you on about? How can you post such nonsense? Are you saying that those Tour de France riders in 2011 were all on EPO? Just what are you tryining to say.

The issue is not power outputs -- they were the same epo or no epo. The issue is to what extent epo allows the athlete to maximize how long and how efficiently they can produce a given power output. It allows your blood to carry more oxygen-rich blood, at the price/risk of making your heart work harder to pump thicker blood.

I'm amazed that elite cyclists can be as lightweight as many are and still produce hi wattage outputs. Of course, we're not talking about sprinters here -- I'm talking about the GC riders. Sprinters like Greipel still need explosive muscle mass to be successful. I doubt a rider like Peter Sagan can be any lighter than he is now and still produce enough explosive power to compete for sprints.

yawn wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

It doesn't have anything at all to do w/ EPO. The link he posted is entirely irrelevant.

What are you on about? How can you post such nonsense? Are you saying that those Tour de France riders in 2011 were all on EPO? Just what are you tryining to say.

Here we get to the heart of the matter. In order for your link to say what you are asserting, you have to assume that the riders in 2011 were not on EPO. That seems like a very poor assumption.

Why is that a very poor assumption?

I know about cycling and how to produce high power outputs naturally. You don't. I could show you, but would you be interested?

DC Wonk wrote:

The issue is not power outputs -- they were the same epo or no epo. The issue is to what extent epo allows the athlete to maximize how long and how efficiently they can produce a given power output. It allows your blood to carry more oxygen-rich blood, at the price/risk of making your heart work harder to pump thicker blood.

I'm amazed that elite cyclists can be as lightweight as many are and still produce hi wattage outputs. Of course, we're not talking about sprinters here -- I'm talking about the GC riders. Sprinters like Greipel still need explosive muscle mass to be successful. I doubt a rider like Peter Sagan can be any lighter than he is now and still produce enough explosive power to compete for sprints.

What you're saying doesn't make any sense. Think about it. If they were using more oxygen, then they would be using more glycogen too, so they would get tired quicker, they would not be able to produce high power outputs for longer.

What you're saying is the same old ridiculous nonsense that everyone has been saying for years, without even thinking logically. They just repeat the same stupid $hit over and over.

The reality of physiology is that elite athletes are more energy efficient. They produce either more power for the same amount of fuel, or use less fuel including oxygen for the same pace. Ultimately over the course of a race they use less glycogen and less oxygen than slower athletes and so they alos recover faster.

This should be common knowledge. But what passes for knowledge in the sport if very far from it.

I do that without dope. It really a combination of better concentration and better techique. Sorry, but taking Dbol is just stupid. You were a fool. But you can't be man enough to admit it.

Rogan is also 48 years old, and is prescribed by a doctor. He uses TRT and HGH to help keep him younger and healthier. Much different than a younger guy in his peak with testosterone.

yawn wrote:

Why is that a very poor assumption?

I know about cycling and how to produce high power outputs naturally. You don't. I could show you, but would you be interested?

I'm sure it is a news flash to you, but cyclists continued taking PEDS, including EPO, after 2005. They take them because they work.

No, some take them because they don't know any better, just like you.

I asked if you want me to show you how to produce high power outputs naturally?

I knew that you wouldn't want to know. Because you are a drug obsessed fool. But you think you know what it's all about. You have no clue.

I think you're either stupid or trolling. Are you really tha wilfully ignorant that you have no intereste in learning about physiology?

yawn wrote:

Why is that a very poor assumption?

I know about cycling and how to produce high power outputs naturally. You don't. I could show you, but would you be interested?

As you are so knowledgeable about the subject compared with everyone else in cycling, why don't you set up a consultancy for cyclists to help them improve their performance like Gus Carmichael or Michele Ferrari? You would make a ton of cash pursuing your passion and you would not even need to give them any illegal PEDs. You would quickly become the world's greatest cycling guru as opposed to being an anonymous poster on running forums.

There are plenty of cycling coaches who are doing just that. When I discuss these things with knowledgeable people, I don't get these incrdulous idiot responses. There is something about the internet that attracts this level of cynicism and inflates it.

I said Hi Yawny Orange! Why are you being rude?

Why do you feel like getting killed in another discussion? Are you a sucker for punishment or something?

yawn wrote:

I didn't post it. But I did see some of it yesterday. I think he was a fantastic athlete. To me the biggest shame, is the obsession everyone had and still has with drugs. So stupid. He was an awesome competitor. I am glad that people are starting to realise that.

You're a COMPLETE IDIOT!!! In fact, I'm going to assume your post is a joke and am just going to go with it.

If in fact you were any type of athlete (which I doubt you were), you would understand that Lance's athletic ability and competitiveness purely stems from his success of which is attributed to his drug use. It's amazing how much of a 'competitor' you become when you're crushing your opponents and you feel invincible while doing it.

Wake up Jack-hole!!

More idiocy from the drug religion maniacs.

Any of you guys want to know how to produce high power outputs naturally?

No?????

Why not? Afraid that your sacred beliefs will be challenged?

yawn wrote:

Power outputs in 2011, same as when Lance was riding in the EPO era:

http://sportsscientists.com/2011/07/the-tour-de-france-power-2011-outputs-from-the-outside-in/

So why does everyone say that power outputs were higher then? They weren't.

Nobody interested in discussing this?

Why the wilful ignorance? Why don't people want to learn how to really improve the sport without drugs?

I just don't get it? There must be some posters out there who want to know?

yawn wrote:

I don't think you understood my point. Read my posts. I have explained that the drugs don't do what you think they do. Power outputs are the same now as they were then. It's time for people to wake up and realise how stupid all of this drug nonsense is. And that includes you.

I take back what I said in my earlier post about you joking. I am now convinced you're a COMPLETE MORON.

Are you kidding me!!! "Drugs don't do what you think they do". What's all this horse-sh*t about "Power Outputs"???? Do you take PED's??? Have you??? Maybe you should take your lame ass out and compete against someone ON PED's and you will see how bad they smoke your A**!!!

Stop posting you DOLT!!!