Seems a little high, I would have guessed 450-460.
Seems a little high, I would have guessed 450-460.
Salvatore Stitchmo wrote:
Bottom line. We never walked a step in Lance Armstrongs shoes. Never. So to spout off with all this "holier-than-thou" bullsh$t about how and what he did was so evil and rip the guy is so utterly self righteous and ignorant it defies description.
The same ones who believe in the drugs are the very same ones who are terrified of the invisible virus, the same one that's never been proven to exist. Yep, and the same thing with all drugs.
zxcvzcxv wrote:
As you say of yourself in the past, you sound like a very unsavory person, which is to say, like Lance. You know the right word. Anyone spouting the phrase 'holier than thou' attitude in defense of a cheater like this, who stole money from other dopers, as well as sponsors and fans, has a limited moral code. We all know that we'd be a lot faster with drugs. Those who use them can and should be differentiated from those who do. I'm happy with my limited gains and results clean and wouldn't have it any other way.
Stole money from sponsors? They paid him to win races, have a high profile, and thereby gain exposure for their products. I'm pretty sure they got a good return on their investments. I doubt many fans walked away from those races disappointed either.
nobody cares how clean you personally are- im sure it takes an impeccable moral code to resist the urge when spending a ton of money on illegal drugs could bring you from slow nobody to slightly less slow nobody.
mr. nice guy wrote:
he himself would glow even brighter than the bulb
bada - bing!
zxcvzcxv wrote:
As you say of yourself in the past, you sound like a very unsavory person, which is to say, like Lance. You know the right word. Anyone spouting the phrase 'holier than thou' attitude in defense of a cheater like this, who stole money from other dopers, as well as sponsors and fans, has a limited moral code. We all know that we'd be a lot faster with drugs. Those who use them can and should be differentiated from those who do. I'm happy with my limited gains and results clean and wouldn't have it any other way.
An "unsavory" person? Haha that made me laugh out loud - good one. But you have indeed made me reflect, and yearn to be someone more like yourself - I'm guessing a middle-aged, white American man, who based on a steady diet of patriotism and being told how perfect you were from childhood, has indeed never taken a poop of even the slightest, how should I put this, "unsavory" nature? Yes, how "unsavory" to admit fallibility and imperfection in ones self. For the rest of us actualized adults in the world who grew up in civilized societies completely unlike the utter shambles you have in the US we call it simply "growing up".
Your limited gains? Your biggest limitation is your maturity my friend. But buck yourself up, go look in a mirror and tell yourself how perfect, righteous and "free" you are.
And hey - another poster basically picked that someone exactly like you would come along - the argument twister that can neither read nor comprehend anything beyond their scope of thought - and I believe they used the term "f###" to describe exactly you. Take it easy my friend.
werwe wrote:
Seems a little high, I would have guessed 450-460.
Elite testing: the results
The best test results achieved by Evans at the AIS between the ages of 18 and 24 was a maximum aerobic power output of 455W (7.3 W.kg-1 body mass).
This power output was associated with a VO2max of 5.65 L.min-1 or 87 ml.kg-1.min-1 – this score remains one of the highest ever recorded for any athlete tested at the AIS in Canberra.
Threshold for Cadel was estimated at 370W or ~6.0 W.kg-1.
The best test results achieved by Armstrong at the University of Texas between the ages of 21 and 28 was an estimated maximum aerobic power output of ~510W (6.8 W.kg-1 body mass).
This was associated with a VO2max of 6.10 L.min-1 or 81 ml.kg-1.min-1.
For Lance’s data we adopted a similar technique for establishing threshold power output and estimated this ‘time trial’ fitness trait to be 425W or 5.7 W.kg-1.
Cadel and Lance both produced their highest VO2max values when they were 22.
Immediately apparent is the superior power to mass ratios produced by Cadel at VO2max intensity. More specifically, Cadel’s 7.3 W.kg-1 at VO2max is almost eight per cent higher than the 6.8 W.kg-1 produced by Lance. Similarly, Cadel’s highest VO2max of 87 ml.kg-1.min-1 is 7.4 per cent higher than Lance’s highest recorded value.
If everyone was clean, Armstrong would have been dropped a couple of minutes into every final climb, with a threshold of 5.7w/kg. The whole 'if everyone is on drugs, it's a level playing field' is a crock.
KawauchiFTW wrote:
Man, I like Lance but could this interviewer dig deeper into his ass... So much ego stroking and ball licking... We all know EPO was a wonder drug in the 90s and 00s in cycling, and other endurance sports...
Was this meant to be homo-erotic?
Please do not compare Lance with Bradley wiggins gee that is like comparing apples and oranges
Lance was one bad muthertrucker, the best of a generation of dopers, even playing field, victories stand. It was common knowledge all the riders were juiced - Lance was just the ultimate scapegoat paying for the sins of his whole generation.
Salvatore Stitchmo wrote:
not a nice person wrote:
Ask the Andreus or the Irish therapist how they feel about that statement. Do you think it’s ok to destroy 8-10 lives in order to “inspire” people to exercise?
Are you serious right now? "Destroyed lives" Dude news flash - because of Lance, Frankie Andreu (who also took the same drugs) made a fortune and leveraged it into his whole commentary gig. Betsy Andreu who was just a thoroughly ordinary women, ended up on all sorts of television shows telling her story of woe and undoubtedly banking checks as a result. And the price she paid? - Lance calling her a "crazy b$tch". That destroyed her life?! F$#k off mate, both of them seem absolutely fine to me. Same with Emma O'Reilly who got the worst of this - having been sued for libel which was then dropped, had her life so badly destroyed she has now forgiven Lance and they get on just fine after he openly admitted he treated her the worst he's ever treated anyone?
So the person he treated the worst, attempted to sue for libel, simply forgave him and moved with his life and you are contending he quote "destroyed" lives? Clearly you don't have any perspective (and I don't, but Im not the one making such claims) as to what a "destroyed" life is. But I'm going to go on record and suggest that neither O'Reilly, the Andreus, Greg LeMond or Floyd Landis have lives that are in absolute rubble.
Bottom line. We never walked a step in Lance Armstrongs shoes. Never. So to spout off with all this "holier-than-thou" bullsh$t about how and what he did was so evil and rip the guy is so utterly self righteous and ignorant it defies description.
Just to be clear, Lance ended up having to protect an empire (the Livestrong foundation) that was never by design and fell at his feet. He ended up being the figurehead of the foundation that as was mentioned, legitimately gave hope (in amongst hundreds of millions of tangible dollars) to people struggling to come to grips with the realities of life and death at the hands of cancer. If he was to go down for doping at that time (to be clear, a crusade led by people that had also profited off the same doping), the impact who have been devastating to those innocent people. You really think Lance Armstrong wanted to be that person? Would you? Lance was cocky little muthaf$$ker from Texas that simply wanted to ride a bike and win races and he never professed to be anything else.
For so few to understand the rock and hard place Lance was morally wedged between for so long is astounding to me. Do I blame him for defending himself? Absolutely not. Lance has had to deal with the guilt of the way he treated people and I truly believe he is sorry for that. It's also real easy to sit back and claim that you would have handled it so much better. The way that he is portrayed as some inhumane scumbag is comical. If anything the way he acted showed he completely human (and hence fallible) he is and was.
I used to be so anti-Lance when I was more involved competitively with running. But that's because I had no perspective on life and only gave a s#$t about myself and my view of the world. When I grew up and understood that I too wasn't perfect and neither were others and that in so many cases we should hold off casting judgement because we simply don't know how complex some peoples stories really are, I softened on Lance. I couldn't care less that he cheated at cycling. Everyone did and still does. It's only sports anyways.
Holy sh*t, I've seen some of your posts on other topics, and thought you seemed like a fairly reasonable guy (unless I'm mixing you up with some other guy), but your take here is so morally and intellectually *backwards* it's absolutely stunning.
You could not possibly be more wrong on every little aspect of everything you just said if you had tried really hard.
Bravo. That is some truly impressive horse-sh*t you're spewing there. Wow.
Why do cyclists complain about losing weight so much? If they're top pros, can they not simply cut calories until their lower body weighs as little as they want?
There's some dude on twitter who puts out a mind-boggling list of wattage by all the top riders for days, it's literally impossible.
I can't watch TdF anymore because it's so obvious they are all doped to the gills, nothing has changed except far better test avoidance/defeating. Maybe someone in the back of the pack is clean and trying to keep up and wondering wtf, feel sorry for them because we'll never even know their name.
Shouldn't have come back to Le Tour.