Who's the greatest climber? Pantani, Riis or Rasmussen?

Bill Bowerman urinated on Phil Knight.

apples and oranges wrote:

Difficult to say because there are few standard criteria by which to compare them. Maybe a good benchmark like Alpe d'Huez:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_d%27Huez#Ascent_times

Pantani seems to be the best. Armstrong second.

But Alpe d'Huez isn't featured in TdF every year.

Of course, they're all a bunch a druggies anyway. So I guess the one who doped the most, climbed the best.

It's amazing to look at that list and look down to what would be the fastest natural time up there. I reckon you are looking at Coppi as the non PED fastest. When you consider the bike he would have been using and the state of the road in the 50's I can see no argument.

On another note what a heap of horse s**t to see all those comments and annotations next to this ruined sport. This for me is what the Athletics world records will look like in 10 years time.

So in just three weeks everything peaks. You should come back!

Advisor wrote:

As I say, I am happy to be corrected, but I only remember Lance being dropped once in the mountains (and not coming back before the end of the stage) and that was on the Joux Plane.

1993 DNFd as a no-hope mid-pack result winning one stage. Hardly the stuff of a grand tour winner. He was shaping up to be a doped one-day rider until suddenly he transforms into a grand tour super hero.

Advisor wrote:Given that he frequently dropped everyone, Pantani, Otxoa (lol) and Hamilton included , it's hard not to say he was the best.

If you watch back the Pantani vs Armstrong Mt Ventoux battle, Armstrong almost rolls up to his wheel when he catches him, you can see that he had more in reserve, but didn't want/need to do more.

The infamous blue train was ridiculous.

Both USA Cycling and the UCI were providing assistance to the entire squad in the form of never testing positive. That assistance was not provided to all riders equally.

Lance's weight varied wildly depending on the year in question and the PEDs he was using.

Actually it didn't. Here is what exercise physiologist Michael Ashenden told during the SCA hearings in 2005:

According to the (in)famous JAP-article by Edward Coyle, his weight varied from 75.1 and 79.7 kilos being almost the same in Nov/1992 and Nov/1993 (78.9 vs 79.7 kg). In any case, while there is naturally some change in the muscular structure, most of the variation in cyclists' weight is due to pathological dieting just before the most heated competition season to lose all the extra fat.

Repeating a claim (I don't even bother to call that argument) time after time like a parrot with no evidence or nothing reminiscent of a source doesn't eventually make it to be true, especially when there is a variety of evidence proving just the opposite.

Aragon wrote:

According to the (in)famous JAP-article by Edward Coyle, his weight varied from 75.1 and 79.7 kilos being almost the same in Nov/1992 and Nov/1993 (78.9 vs 79.7 kg).

That should be Nov/1999, ie. no change in seven years.

Everything peaks? What is that supposed to mean?

Jon Orange wrote:

bloody mary keitany wrote:

So in just three weeks everything peaks. You should come back!

Everything peaks? What is that supposed to mean?

Cardio adaptations.

Aragon,

You and Jon Orange really work at rewriting history. Maybe throw some biblical references in to strengthen your case.

http://www.si.com/more-sports/2011/01/18/lance-armstrong

The article is not available in its entirety online. Bottom line, USA Cycling never tested Armstrong positive. Ever. We already know the UCI did the same.

The guy was an uncontrolled human experiment since at least his teenage years doping with Carmichael.

I appreciate that you have finally produced a source for your arguments. SI is a respected publication and David Epstein particularly a well-known and respected journalist (I loved particularly his book "Sports Gene").The key issue is the alleged cover-up of Armstrong's positive testosterone samples, an episode that is truly a serious one if true. Doping specialist Don Catlin told almost immediately his version on why there most likely was no follow-up on the issue of high T/E-ratio of Lance's samples:

To summarize the long quote: Unlike, as in the case of Floyd Landis (2006) where the presence of synthetic testosterone was confirmed in the carbon isotope ratio (CIR) test, this option wasn't available in 1990s and the follow up-tests apparently proved negative. As far as I know, the positive test or cover up-claims of this particular instance haven't been taken too seriously by most anti-Lance-biographers such as Juliet Macur or Reed Albergotti in their biographies nor are they mentioned in the USADA-report (which - to be fair - focuses more on the post-cancer events).

As far as I know, the artificial hemoglobin carrier HEMASSIST mentioned in the SI article hasn't appeared in any of the affidavits provided to the USADA nor in the "Reasoned decision" and the matter appears to be dropped very quickly after it was mentioned in 2011, while Tyler Hamilton's autobiography being an exception and indeed mentioning the episode.

To be fair, there are some instances of preferential treatment of Armstrong in the CIRC-report, particularly during his return to cycling in 2008. On the other hand, he wasn't the only athlete whose positive test results (corticosteroids) were whitewashed nor the only one who was warned when his samples were approaching the banned thresholds.

bloody mary keitany wrote:

Jon Orange wrote:

Everything peaks? What is that supposed to mean?

Cardio adaptations.

And what is that supposed to mean?

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Aragon,

You and Jon Orange really work at rewriting history. Maybe throw some biblical references in to strengthen your case.

Rewriting history? WTF?

Jon Orange wrote:

bloody mary keitany wrote:

Cardio adaptations.

And what is that supposed to mean?

The stuff that you say limits out after three weeks. You tell me what limits out, it's your idea.

You should read more carefully. Read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.

Aragon wrote:

Aragon wrote:

According to the (in)famous JAP-article by Edward Coyle, his weight varied from 75.1 and 79.7 kilos being almost the same in Nov/1992 and Nov/1993 (78.9 vs 79.7 kg).

That should be Nov/1999, ie. no change in seven years.

Except he never actually weighed him. There are a huge laundry list of errors in the Coyle study. You can scroll down here to read them.

Jon Orange wrote:

You should read more carefully. Read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.

The increase in blood volume increases stroke volume. Heart rate goes down, both at rest and at work, but the total cardiac output, which is heart rate x cardiac output goes up. So you can keep going for longer at the same intensity.

It only takes 2-3 weeks to achieve this naturally

So what's hard to understand. You can maximise blood volume in 2-3 weeks.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Except he never actually weighed him. There are a huge laundry list of errors in the Coyle study. You can scroll down here to read them.

That is new information to me, you don't happen to have a source or link? I am aware that one of the issues debated in the SCA-case was the claim that Armstrong had lost weight from 1992 to 1999 (which the data Coyle presents in the 2005 working paper doesn't support). For one reason or another, still in 2013, Coyle tells about Armstrong that "the main physiological improvements he displayed over this 7-year period during which the author was testing him were an improved gross mechanical efficiency and a reduced body weight".