Lance Armstrong on Chris Froome

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Oh Please wrote:

As near as fact as may be: All Grand Tour winners and and top competitors have used some form of artificial aid.

This is a dumb excuse made by dopers to make them seem normal and not dirty thieves.

First, not every rider doped.

Second, EPO was revolutionary compared to everything that came before it. It transformed the likes of an internationally average rider like Riis into a grand tour champion. There was no drug like that before. That's part of the reason why a rider like Lemond suddenly became rather ordinary. Was it the entire reason? Probably not.

Interesting, I wonder if there are any runners who were good internationally, but not great, but than magically turned into world beaters later in their career?

Fo Marah wrote:

Interesting, I wonder if there are any runners who were good internationally, but not great, but than magically turned into world beaters later in their career?

Or even world record breakers?

Aragon wrote:

Perhaps you should publish an exposé about his motor because obviously you have some inside insights into the matter instead of the vague and murky allegations that have been circulating roughly a year now.

If it is proven that Lance had access to motor I'll change my opinion about him instantly even when it can't be proven that the technology wasn't available to his competitors.

I know you're a big fan of Armstrong. No big deal; many people still think he's a charming & wonderful guy. ? But a 60 minutes piece on cycling and motors had "Stefano Varjas" saying hidden motor technology was available as early as 1998, and that he sold his protege model to possibly an unknown pro rider back then:

I believe you have said that LA may have been using EPO as early as 93 (?)...and not after he returned from cancer in 98 and hooked up with Ferrari (and if he was on EPO in the early to mid-90s before his cancer, he sure as heck wasn't winning any GTs and he couldn't climb worth a crap!).

So how did LA become so dominate in the TdF for seven straight years?!? How did LA, who couldn't climb worth a crap early in his career, become one of the best climbers in the history of the sport? How did LA dominate and crush big time GT riders on top notched programs like Pantani & Ulrich? (one close year with Ulrich in 03 beating him by "only" 1 minute).

LA was way to dominate for seven straight years over very talented top GT contenders who were also doping with the same products & methods as Armstrong (it should have been a more level playing field, IMO).

How do you explain his dominance? ?

Let's Get To The Bottom Of This wrote:

How do you explain his dominance? ?

Lance was a phenomenal athlete, one the best in the last 50 years. He is, and will always be, a true American hero who humiliated the uppity Europeans at their own little incestuous game.

He only made two mistakes:

First, he confessed. That was incredibly, unbelievably stupid. The confession got him absolutely nothing in terms of sympathy. It only intensified his public humiliation and cut the ground from under all his supporters.

Second, he has not written a tell-all book. We need to know the details of exactly what he took, how often, what dosages. What were the side effects. How were the side-effects controlled. What were the observable benefits. What types of measures were used to hide the doping. Who and how much did he have to pay to conceal adverse test result. What other riders did he witness doping.

We need all the recipes, all the ingredients, all the details, the whole cookbook. Keeping this information to himself is inexcusably selfish.

Lance is a dick, but I would buy this book. Would need to cover all his dickish behavior though, not just his own doping protocol

Let's Get To The Bottom Of This wrote:

LA was way to dominate for seven straight years over very talented top GT contenders who were also doping with the same products & methods as Armstrong (it should have been a more level playing field, IMO).

How do you explain his dominance? ?

He had the backing of USA Cycling doping since he was a teenager, he got the backing of the UCI, after a while ASO was helping.

Apparently, other riders felt they could not trust the UCI to let them dope, so they could not go full-gas.

One of the funnier things that doesn't get often mentioned are the riders who would leave USPS with bigger aspirations than supporting Lance, then get popped. Tyler Hamilton was just one of many.

Fo Marah wrote:

Interesting, I wonder if there are any runners who were good internationally, but not great, but than magically turned into world beaters later in their career?

Jama Aden only held the stopwatch for Mo because it's a special skill.

Meh...we already know what he was using; EPO (then switched to blood doping after the test came out in 2000), testosterone, HGH & corticosteroids. You can research the two prominent doping doctors Ferrari & Fuentes and these are the substances they were using - with a heavy emphasis on O2-vector doping.

IMO, they were letting him go over the 50% upper hematocrit level, which was implemented in 1997 to control the outrageous & dangerously high crits of some riders (e.g., Riis aka/"Mr. 60 percenter"). Armstrong rode too much like the riders of the pre-hct limit era, where most of the fastest climbs were set. Of course, LA would never admit to this. ?

need to know basis wrote:

Lance was a phenomenal athlete, one the best in the last 50 years. He is, and will always be, a true American hero who humiliated the uppity Europeans at their own little incestuous game.

He only made two mistakes:

First, he confessed. That was incredibly, unbelievably stupid. The confession got him absolutely nothing in terms of sympathy. It only intensified his public humiliation and cut the ground from under all his supporters.

I know! I can't believe he'd be so stupid to go on Oprah and confess like he did! At least, he could have worn a disguise or something! ?

This thread has some gems.

When you subtract the wattage from the motor he was using, he becomes average on climbs even with the dope.

Could you provide a list of the these popped former USPS riders or is this just a nice story like the pretty much unsubstantiated claim that high hematocrit can cause death under the ABP-program? (do you seriously think that in 2017 you can elevate you hematocrit to low 60's?). If the Texan wanted to bust his former teammates, how come Jonathan Vaughters (whom Armstrong didn't even particularly like) wrote the following in his USADA-affidavit?

If your knowledge of the source material is based on some echo-chamber - fueled gossip and on the five first hits of Google, you don't find this material, it is also telling that you never retract any of your allegations but throw just the next boring one-liner when you are proven to have your facts wrong. The only one of his notable former teammates who got popped when Lance's career was still in full-swing I can recall is Hamilton.

I am as much an Armstrong-fan as Clarence Darrow was a fan of Leopold and Loeb or Robert Servatius was a fan of Adolf Eichmann.

I am not an American, I have never donated to LiveStrong, I didn't follow his career and actually the only Armstrong era Tour I even somewhat followed was the 2001 edition. I don't even listen to his podcasts regularly, and while he has some good insights now-and-then, the Froome episode was boring as hell gave nothing new nor interesting.

I have no "explanation" for his 99-05 dominance, but my gut feeling is that what Eddy Merckx did with winning every second GT or classic he participated during his career is more dominant than what the Texan did. He won 525 races during his career and in 1972 he won Giro and Tour and even prepared and managed to break the hour record.

Why wouldn’t I? I think rule violations and drug effectiveness are two seperate topics. For that matter, I think drug effectiveness in distance running and in cycling are two different topics which can lead to different conclusions. I rarely talk about performance in cycling, except to say cycling is not running. Why would you mix all these things together? If an athlete violated the rules, the rules also spell out the appropriate sanctions and guidelines. In no thread, do I defend that athletes should violate any WADA rules, or escape sanctions for violating them.

High-Octane Dopers wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Drug cheat apologist? I never get that.

I thought I was quite critical of Armstrong a few pages back.

He took drugs, and should be punished to the full extent that rules permit, but that was the least of his sins. If you can show someone took drugs, by all means, punish them according to the rules.

Geez...rekrunner...why would you think that when you believe EPO/blood doping is ineffective? ?

Yeah I still don’t get it. Drug cheats should be sanctioned according to applicable rules and laws. Accusing an athlete or coach of being a drug cheat is not the same as being a drug cheat. Pointing out real facts from and status of investigations is not the definition of apologist.

fixing stuff wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Drug cheat apologist? I never get that.

I thought I was quite critical of Armstrong a few pages back.

Kidding, right?

Yes, you are critical of Armstrong, but are a strong apologist for

- Baumann (took only toothpaste)

- Decker (had menopause)

- Radcliffe ( measurement errors)

- Farah (does not hear well)

- Jeptoo (doped only once, which didn't help)

- Gatlin (doped only once, wins clean at age 35)

- Wilson (ate beef)

- Aden (handed out vitamins)

- Salazar (wasn't Decker's coach, using forbidden methods is ok)

and so on. Quite obvious a drug cheat apologist, whether you like Armstrong or not.

Yeah I don’t get this either. I argue against jumping to conclusions with little to no evidence, or based on half the evidence. I’m usually quite careful to attack what people write, rather than resort to name-calling and personal insults.

fixing stuff wrote:

m!ndweak wrote:

dont bother with pointing out truth

rekrunner, like jamin and vent/calculo are MODS on this site.

Right. But think positive: rekrunner is less insulting these days, jamin doesn't write endless nonsense with each post, and vent has a cool calculator.

rekrunner wrote:

Yeah I still don’t get it. Drug cheats should be sanctioned according to applicable rules and laws.

Yet you defended Baumann and Decker and Farah and all the NOP forbidden method users (Magness, Ritz, Tara, maybe Rupp). The first two were actually banned, yet you claimed they were innocent (toothpaste and menopause), Farah should have been banned for test evasion (wada code, 2.3.: "without compelling justification", but UKAD stood up for him), and the forbidden method is punishable by bans of 2 - 4 years.

And I am ignoring your wife here, while her cases are among the most obvious ones.

Is this fun for you?

rekrunner wrote:

I’m usually quite careful to attack what people write, rather than resort to name-calling and personal insults.

How often have you insulted just me alone? Serious question.

My advice., is you need to learn the difference between insulting what is written, and insulting the persons that wrote them. Personally, I don’t think anything you’ve ever said to me is worth censuring or banning you. I’m sure you crossed the line with Renato, and some serious drug doping allegations. It’s likely this, combined with the sheer volume of insulting posts, and the lack of contribution to fruitful discussions, which got you put in the naughty chair. But don’t blame me for any of these consequences. For what it’s worth, I’ve had posts deleted too, sometimes for reasons I did not understand, and I have no inside or outside connections to any MODs or administrator or owners or employees of this site, nor am I any of these, nor have I ever “reported” your posts, but I’m just a regular anonymous poster, with no more special privileges than anyone else.

I provided public facts, and highlighted where your opinions and conclusions lack basis and objectivity, or were simply wrong interpretations.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Yeah I still don’t get it. Drug cheats should be sanctioned according to applicable rules and laws.

Yet you defended Baumann and Decker and Farah and all the NOP forbidden method users (Magness, Ritz, Tara, maybe Rupp). The first two were actually banned, yet you claimed they were innocent (toothpaste and menopause), Farah should have been banned for test evasion (wada code, 2.3.: "without compelling justification", but UKAD stood up for him), and the forbidden method is punishable by bans of 2 - 4 years.

And I am ignoring your wife here, while her cases are among the most obvious ones.

Is this fun for you?