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

Jon Orange wrote:

dope works wrote:

Nope. The reason physiologists don't argue with you on here is because they don't want to have a mindless discussion with an internet expert with zero schooling.

No, it's because they either don't know their physiology or they are too afraid to go against the mainstream.

Those awkward questions I asked. They need to be answered, not ignored.

Go ask them then and report back. Have you tried contacting them? Expecting them all to stumble across your rantings on here probably isn't good journalism..

Write that book that you can back up with all of your peer reviewed studies and lab tests showing the proof. Should be pretty easy.

.

newname wrote:

Lucien Van Impe

Richard Virenque

Federico Bahamontes

Charly Gaul

Riis and Rasmussen would not make the first 30 in my opinion.

Second Lucien Van Impe--6x KoM, 1x GC in the Tour de France, 2x KoM in Giro.

I'm posting on this thread as a message to other letsrun posters. To show them things they never considered.

Why would you have a problem with that?

You should learn, but you can't or won't.

Gaul, Bahamontes, Van Impe, Pantani.

All true climbers who won the Tour.

No, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. Stop avoiding the issue.

The issue is REAL PHYSIOLOGY VERSUS PSEUDOSCIENCE.

These questions are important. They must be asked, they must not be ignored:

So what do you think EPO actually does?

Why doesn't the human body just produce more red blood cells if it's such an advantage?

If EPO increases oxygen uptake, it must increase glycogen uptake too? So why don't they hit the wall?

Why don't they over heat?

Why doesn't that disturb homeostasis?

Awkward questions none of you can answer without talking pseudoscience.

The best hematocrit, is the natural one. That is real science, real physiology.

Jon Orange wrote:

I'm posting on this thread as a message to other letsrun posters. To show them things they never considered.

Why would you have a problem with that?

You should learn, but you can't or won't.

Because you are getting nowhere. You've posted this dozens of times. Go somewhere that you can PROVE that you can make a difference(a lab) and then come back.

Until then you're just pi*sing into the wind.

Jon Orange wrote:

No, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. Stop avoiding the issue.

The issue is REAL PHYSIOLOGY VERSUS PSEUDOSCIENCE.

These questions are important. They must be asked, they must not be ignored:

So what do you think EPO actually does?

Why doesn't the human body just produce more red blood cells if it's such an advantage?

If EPO increases oxygen uptake, it must increase glycogen uptake too? So why don't they hit the wall?

Why don't they over heat?

Why doesn't that disturb homeostasis?

Awkward questions none of you can answer without talking pseudoscience.

The best hematocrit, is the natural one. That is real science, real physiology.

Genetically determined ceiling which EPO overrides.

EPO produces more red blood cells. That equals more readily available Oxygen.

People take in fuel so more glucose it irrelevant.

They don't overheat the same way anyone else keeps cool while exercising. Elites also handle higher temperatures.

Who cares about homeostasis? Racing is not a resting state. Homeostasis can wait until bedtime.

Aragon wrote:

Aside from that, there is no evidence that any positive doping US Postal doping test was covered up. As many doping/health check tests (Hct/OffScore/EPO) were based on thresholds, it was also customary for UCI to warn any athletes who were close to these limits at least roughly in period 2000-2005.

.

This is an enormous misrepresentation of facts. I will give you credit for sounding more rational than Jon Orange.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

This is an enormous misrepresentation of facts. I will give you credit for sounding more rational than Jon Orange.

"Enormous misrepresentation" without a single example where and how I got it wrong, not particularly convincing. As you appear to know everything about everything, perhaps you could be kind and inform all LR-readers (and yours truly) where and how the facts were misrepresented.

As far as I know, the only really suspicious episode was the 1999 Tour corticosteroid-positive where even there occurred more than is usually told.

Lance was the best climber of his era but used it sparingly when he needed it. Elefantino was not far off but was not able to do that while also crushing time trials and staying with the leaders in prologues and flat stages like Armstrong. And we know all about Lance's drug use now. Did you know that Pantani was frequently in the mid to high 50s in hematocrit levels for years? Or that he was taking not only EPO, but also levothyroid, IGF-1, that drug the guy on this forum is always accusing everyone of taking, and others, including a menopausal hormone?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Pantani

Lance was the best climber of his era

Not a chance.

How did Otxoa smoke him on the Hautacam in 2000? Also, did he ever carry the polka dot jersey? Tyler Hamilton was a better climber in that era, IMO.

If you consider Lance with his history, you MUST consider Rasmussen with his history. Rasmussen had a polka dot bike, he was such a good climber.

Lance was, however, the best all-arounder all things considered. He also had a Ferrari for a doctor where the other riders had a Hyundai. "Dr. Nick Riviera" comes to mind...

Pantani was a better climber. The evidence is still out on him. IMO, Pantani may have been clean but was set up.

not the best climber wrote:

Lance was the best climber of his era

Not a chance.

How did Otxoa smoke him on the Hautacam in 2000? Also, did he ever carry the polka dot jersey? Tyler Hamilton was a better climber in that era, IMO.

If you consider Lance with his history, you MUST consider Rasmussen with his history. Rasmussen had a polka dot bike, he was such a good climber.

Lance was, however, the best all-arounder all things considered. He also had a Ferrari for a doctor where the other riders had a Hyundai. "Dr. Nick Riviera" comes to mind...

Pantani was a better climber. The evidence is still out on him. IMO, Pantani may have been clean but was set up.

Your understanding of cycling is non-existent. Javier Achoa beat Armstrong on Hautacam in 2000 because he went in the breakaway with something like 100 miles to the finish and saying he smoked him is ridiculous, Lance was 12 minutes down on Ochoa heading on to final ascent with 13km to go and finished 40 something seconds behind him at the top with Ochoa running on fumes for the last 4km. Great ride by Ochoa but that was one stage where he went chasing a stage win, Armstrong was climbing to put his mark on the yellow jersey. Armstrong blew the legs off Pantani and Virenque(7 time king of the mountains) on that last climb. By your logic, Virenque was a terrible climber because Ochoa beat him that day too. That was one of the most dominant displays of climbing (albeit doped up) in the modern cycling era.

It's also extremely rare for the yellow jersey to win the polka dot jersey because they have to defend and can't go out and pick up points on the intermediate climbs as they are saving themselves for 3 weeks of racing where a bad day could end their hopes of winning, it's all about using the least amount of energy possible unless there is an opportunity to put time on your rivals.

Tyler Hamilton a better climber than Lance!? Maybe if they weren't both doped but they were and Hamilton wasn't even close when he was competing against him. A cheat is a cheat and they both were and Armstrong was clearly the better climber on drugs.

jjjjjj wrote:

Lance was the best climber of his era but used it sparingly when he needed it. Elefantino was not far off but was not able to do that while also crushing time trials and staying with the leaders in prologues and flat stages like Armstrong. And we know all about Lance's drug use now. Did you know that Pantani was frequently in the mid to high 50s in hematocrit levels for years? Or that he was taking not only EPO, but also levothyroid, IGF-1, that drug the guy on this forum is always accusing everyone of taking, and others, including a menopausal hormone?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Pantani

My recollection is that Wikipedia-source tells that he took those drugs only after 2000 as a client of Fuentes when his career was pretty much in downfall. Very likely he took at least some of those products during 1990s and Matt Rendell quotes some Conconi files that indicate that he took steroids as early as 1991.

On Tyler vs. Lance.

With all logic, Tyler Hamilton should've been a better climber as he was noticeably lighter than Lance (~75 vs. 62-65 kg) while only two inches shorter. Tyler himself hints to this in his autobiography as he beated Lance during the 2004 Dauphiné Libere's individual time trial in Mont Ventoux only a month before the Tour of that year:

1. Iban Mayo (Euskaltel) 55min 51sec

2. Tyler Hamilton (Phonak) @ 35 sec 3

5. Lance Armstrong (US Postal) @ 1min 58sec

I wouldn't still be too convinced. As Tyler's coauthor Daniel Coyle points out, according to Floys Landis, the US Postal team had underwent a blood donation before the Dauphine whereas Tyler had mostly likely received multiple transfusions during the spring-summer 2004. He pretty much admits this and it is a well established fact that he had troubles with the Hct-limits and OffScores during the spring. Here Tyler is comparing semi-anemic (Postal) vs. blood-doped (Phonak).

I love the Pantani blood values going from 40s to almost 60. No, more is not better! lol

How do you reconcile your theory with the various tests which have show endurance performance improvement with EPO? Moreover how is that none of these tests have failed to find improvement?

Cycling performance isn't a significant driver of natural selection. How do you think genetics works?

You conditional isn't necessarily true. Lipid metabolism requires more oxygen per unit energy than glycolosis, so it's more than plausible that glycogen uptake is reduced at equivalent energy levels.

It's clearly not the case that heat dissipation is always the limiting factor in endurance performance.

It does. That's the point.

The best hematocrit for what? These are rationalizations for a believe system that is inconsistent with the available evidence.

Jon thinks it works because the athlete believes it does. No more, no less.

His lab in Yorkshire is currently monitoring the increased level of belief in the bloodstream of select athletes..

Of course he doesn't address how the increased performance of belief doesn't also use more fuel, increase heating and upset homeostasis.

I'm not formatting a reply to all those questions. That's a bit of a weird thing to do in my opinion, who is going to read it? About 3 people.

Giving EPO to a relatively untrained runner will increase blood volume, which in turn will increase endurance. But that happens naturally with endurance training.

Your question about genetics is a non sequitur. You are ignoring my question because is hurts your head. Why doesn't the body just produce more RBCs if it's an advantage?

Lipid metabolism DOES NOT require more oxygen that carbohydrate metabolism, you are repeating an old myth. To quote Christopher B. Scott from his paper Contribution of anaerobic energy expenditure to whole body thermogenesis 2005

"the complete oxidation of glucose and glycogen has additional relative carbon dioxide production, not less relative oxygen uptake, as compared to fat oxidation."

Heat production most certainaly IS a limiting factor in enduranc exercise, to claim otherwise is ignorant. This disturbs homeostasit and the athlete must slow down.

"The best hematocrit for what? "

Winning the The Tour de France in this case.

My "belief system" is real physiology and the amazing adaptive qualities of the human body. What is yours? Pseudoscientific dogma?

dope works wrote:

Jon Orange wrote:

I'm posting on this thread as a message to other letsrun posters. To show them things they never considered.

Why would you have a problem with that?

You should learn, but you can't or won't.

Because you are getting nowhere. You've posted this dozens of times. Go somewhere that you can PROVE that you can make a difference(a lab) and then come back.

Until then you're just pi*sing into the wind.

The reason I am getting nowhere is because people have been brainwashed by the druggie dogma. They don't believe in human physiology. That is not rational or sane.

Plenty of people outside the weird bubble of the internet are showing what I am saying. You might get it eventually.

Jon Orange wrote:

Gaul, Bahamontes, Van Impe, Pantani.

All true climbers who won the Tour.

I missed out Luis Ocaña.