Armstrong has been tinkered with!!

TiMan said:

Here is a quote from good bro "limerickman". Gets you thinking!

Could it be that Armstrongs drop in weight from a tour weight of about 170 to 158, along with "smarter training", could make such a HUGE difference in his performance in the tour? NOT!

"

I find LA's explanations for his improvement to be unbelievable - quite simply.

The statistics are there for everyone to access.
I have watched cycling for more years than I care to remember and the explanations given by LA to explain his success as a stage race rider since 1999, and after having suffered cancer, do not ring true to me.

I watched LA closely between 1992-1996 and he was, in relative terms, at best, a good one day rider.
Even on this basis though, he wasn't the best one dayer in 1992-1996.
Tafi, Museeuw, Zulle, Jalabert were all superior to him.

As a stage race rider, he was an also ran.
He never managed to win a major stage race like Paris-Nice, Dauphine or Midi Libre.
(he did win the Tour du Pont).
In the major tours, he was never a contender on GC.
Nor was he a contender in any of the classements within the Grand Tours.

Recall his comment when Big Mig caught him for six minutes during the 1995
TDF at stage 19 Lac De Vassiere ITT : "I simply couldn't believe that Indurain caught me for six minutes - I'll have to go away and work on my ITT riding".

It's up to everyone to decide their view, of course.
Statistically, LA is not the rider he was between 1992-1996.
And his explantion for his improvement does ring true.

Pre cancer 2 semi-Classics and a Worlds (when no one was racing because of the cold and wet) - post cancer 6 straight TdFs. I hear a lot about his amazing VO2, this that and the other - he had all those physical advantages pre cancer presumably? I don't believe a word of it.

limerickman said:

I find LA's explanations for his improvement to be unbelievable - quite simply.

The statistics are there for everyone to access.
I have watched cycling for more years than I care to remember and the explanations given by LA to explain his success as a stage race rider since 1999, and after having suffered cancer, do not ring true to me.

I watched LA closely between 1992-1996 and he was, in relative terms, at best, a good one day rider.
Even on this basis though, he wasn't the best one dayer in 1992-1996.
Tafi, Museeuw, Zulle, Jalabert were all superior to him.

As a stage race rider, he was an also ran.
He never managed to win a major stage race like Paris-Nice, Dauphine or Midi Libre.
(he did win the Tour du Pont).
In the major tours, he was never a contender on GC.
Nor was he a contender in any of the classements within the Grand Tours.

Recall his comment when Big Mig caught him for six minutes during the 1995
TDF at stage 19 Lac De Vassiere ITT : "I simply couldn't believe that Indurain caught me for six minutes - I'll have to go away and work on my ITT riding".

It's up to everyone to decide their view, of course.
Statistically, LA is not the rider he was between 1992-1996.
And his explantion for his improvement does ring true.

Reiterating Lim's last line:
And his explantion for his improvement does ring true.

I knew you'd come around buddy.
I think what you're really upset about is that your theory about super champions having a pedigree is flawed.

One thing's for sure - whatever Lance's results might be in the Spring Classics (are we still allowed to call them that?) there's going to be a lot more speculation and you'll either have more ammunition or more grief.

DiabloScott said:

Reiterating Lim's last line:
And his explantion for his improvement does ring true.

I knew you'd come around buddy.
I think what you're really upset about is that your theory about super champions having a pedigree is flawed.

One thing's for sure - whatever Lance's results might be in the Spring Classics (are we still allowed to call them that?) there's going to be a lot more speculation and you'll either have more ammunition or more grief.

should read "doesn't ring true".

We have been over this ground before, my friend - I think that my pedigree theory holds more now than it did when we discussed this issue last year !

I look forward to LA's taking part in the spring classics - although I would wager that we will see him at this years TDF as well and he'll be out to win it.
(Discovery would want to see a return on their investment).

Hi! I've been following the discussion for quite some time kai and I do find it very very interesting. What you say limerickman seems logical and it may very well be true. Yet in other topics you seem to accept Flyer's point of view that LA was a doper pro-cancer. Assuming that this is also true I find it hard to put his success post-cancer down simply to drugs. There is no drug that can produce such a difference by itself.

DV1976 said:

Hi! I've been following the discussion for quite some time kai and I do find it very very interesting. What you say limerickman seems logical and it may very well be true. Yet in other topics you seem to accept Flyer's point of view that LA was a doper pro-cancer. Assuming that this is also true I find it hard to put his success post-cancer down simply to drugs. There is no drug that can produce such a difference by itself.

I don't understand the question.

My premise is that LA was, at best a one day rider, pre cancer.
Then he was diagnosed with cancer and is out of the peloton for two years.
He comes back in the Vuelta in 1998 and he starts this winning streak.
He outclimbs the greatest climbers, he outsprints people, he out rolls everyone.
This is the same man who could only finish one TDF between 1992-1996.

To me the explanation for his improvement from pre-cancer to post cancer doesn't ring true (he tells us it's hard work, weight loss, more focus).
Everything I have read about LA pre cancer showed me a cyclist who trained bloody hard (see David Walsh's interview in the 1993 book "Inside the TDF",
with LA) and who was totally focussed.
The only other mitigating factor is weightloss and LA wants us to accept this
as his premise for his improvement.

That's my issue - LA's explanation for his improvement.
I don't believe that he is telling us the truth.

Then I probably misunderstood you. I think that what he is telling is part of the truth but not all of it

DV1976 said:

Hi! I've been following the discussion for quite some time kai and I do find it very very interesting. What you say limerickman seems logical and it may very well be true. Yet in other topics you seem to accept Flyer's point of view that LA was a doper pro-cancer. Assuming that this is also true I find it hard to put his success post-cancer down simply to drugs. There is no drug that can produce such a difference by itself.

Wow, I am glad I got your error. My point of view is that Lance has been actively doping since 1990, possibly even earlier. pre age 18?

Because Lance was 18 in 1990 and a senior member of the Junior Team, I highly doubt that the younger riders, aged 17 years old, were injecting 3-4 times per day while in England, while Lance looked on.

They were a Team of dopers in July 1990.

That is my view pre cancer.

Post Cancer, you had a reengineering project which dovetailed nicely into Michele Ferrari previous work with Francesco Moser, Tony Rominger and Evgini Berzin. "Sustainable power over explosive power"

Please reread all of my posts. You may have missed other important points.

Flyer said:

Wow, I am glad I got your error. My point of view is that Lance has been actively doping since 1990, possibly even earlier. pre age 18?

Because Lance was 18 in 1990 and a senior member of the Junior Team, I highly doubt that the younger riders, aged 17 years old, were injecting 3-4 times per day while in England, while Lance looked on.

They were a Team of dopers in July 1990.

That is my view pre cancer.

Post Cancer, you had a reengineering project which dovetailed nicely into Michele Ferrari previous work with Francesco Moser, Tony Rominger and Evgini Berzin. "Sustainable power over explosive power"

Please reread all of my posts. You may have missed other important points.

I have read all your posts and as a matter of fact I agree with 95% of what you are saying. I just don't think that the Ferrari assocciation and/or any new drug were solely responsible for his transformation post-cancer. I do think that a big part of it had to do with his attitude and focus post-cancer and also with the fact that he had the luxury of peaking for only one event per year. My point of view is not based on sentiment but on my belief that there is no drug capable of such a transformation (at least none that he wouldn't know of pre-cancer). Nor is he the only one that goes for "sustainable power over explosive power" or has had an asscociation with Dr Ferrari. The latter I could accept if he won only for one time, two at the most. But 6!!!!!! I mean what have the rest of the peloton been doing? Don't get me wrong. I don't underestimate Dr Ferrari's part in his success but Dr Ferrari had other customers as well and Dr Ferrari was not the only "guru" around. European riders had had the services of his (and others) for many years at their disposal. LA simply caught up.

DV1976 said:

I have read all your posts and as a matter of fact I agree with 95% of what you are saying. I just don't think that the Ferrari assocciation and/or any new drug were solely responsible for his transformation post-cancer. I do think that a big part of it had to do with his attitude and focus post-cancer and also with the fact that he had the luxury of peaking for only one event per year. My point of view is not based on sentiment but on my belief that there is no drug capable of such a transformation (at least none that he wouldn't know of pre-cancer). Nor is he the only one that goes for "sustainable power over explosive power" or has had an asscociation with Dr Ferrari. The latter I could accept if he won only for one time, two at the most. But 6!!!!!! I mean what have the rest of the peloton been doing? Don't get me wrong. I don't underestimate Dr Ferrari's part in his success but Dr Ferrari had other customers as well and Dr Ferrari was not the only "guru" around. European riders had had the services of his (and others) for many years at their disposal. LA simply caught up.

Now we're moving on to dangerous territory.
The presumption is that LA simply caught up with an already doped peloton.
This is dangerous ground.

I have two contacts in the current peloton and I can tell you that not all pros
are dopeurs.
These sources are impeccable people and I have no reason to distrust their words.

It also depends how one defines doping.
What Flyer alleges is not just doping, it is Dr Frankenstein stuff.
It's taking the basic human raw material and fundamentally changing it in to someone who performs way beyond their capability.

If you're taking stuff in order to simply finish a course, tour, season - you are merely taking stuff to look after yourself.
Is this doping ?
Others take stuff and their performances dramtically improve - and to me they are the dopeurs.

I have no doubt some people will say that I have contradicted myself.
I oppose all artificial help - but I can do so in the knowledge that I could never be a contender.

But I do have sympathy for those who take stuff merely to ensure that they get a contract.
It's those who dope at the top of the sport who not only cheat their fellow competitors but they also put pressure on those further down the peloton to perform in order to earn a crust.

limerickman said:

Now we're moving on to dangerous territory.
The presumption is that LA simply caught up with an already doped peloton.
This is dangerous ground.

I have two contacts in the current peloton and I can tell you that not all pros
are dopeurs.
These sources are impeccable people and I have no reason to distrust their words.

Neither have I. Nor do I believe that all the peloton is doping. But I do believe that a significant part of it is and I know that Flyer believes it too because he has stated it in other threads repeatedly and he has named names. On that basis I wrote what I wrote...

Quoted post said:

It also depends how one defines doping.
What Flyer alleges is not just doping, it is Dr Frankenstein stuff.
It's taking the basic human raw material and fundamentally changing it in to someone who performs way beyond their capability.

This is where my disagreement lies. I cannot accept that IF such a kind of doping is taking place LA is the only one who does it or that he takes it further than anyone else. Now, if Flyer's (or anybody else's) issue with LA is his hypocrisy (again assuming that what is alleged is true) then I have no objections. But reading some of the stuff that has been written I get the impression that LA follows some sort of a miracle doping regime that nobody else can emulate. Not because they are not willing to but because they don't have the means to. Now, I admit that English is not my native language so it may very well be that I misunderstood or missed something and if that is the case I can only apologize. But if my impression is correct then I can't see how the above notion can be true.

Quoted post said:

If you're taking stuff in order to simply finish a course, tour, season - you are merely taking stuff to look after yourself.
Is this doping ?
Others take stuff and their performances dramtically improve - and to me they are the dopeurs.

I have no doubt some people will say that I have contradicted myself.
I oppose all artificial help - but I can do so in the knowledge that I could never be a contender.

But I do have sympathy for those who take stuff merely to ensure that they get a contract.
It's those who dope at the top of the sport who not only cheat their fellow competitors but they also put pressure on those further down the peloton to perform in order to earn a crust.

I didn't judge anyone and I will never do.

DV1976 said:

I have read all your posts and as a matter of fact I agree with 95% of what you are saying. I just don't think that the Ferrari assocciation and/or any new drug were solely responsible for his transformation post-cancer. I do think that a big part of it had to do with his attitude and focus post-cancer and also with the fact that he had the luxury of peaking for only one event per year. My point of view is not based on sentiment but on my belief that there is no drug capable of such a transformation (at least none that he wouldn't know of pre-cancer). Nor is he the only one that goes for "sustainable power over explosive power" or has had an asscociation with Dr Ferrari. The latter I could accept if he won only for one time, two at the most. But 6!!!!!! I mean what have the rest of the peloton been doing? Don't get me wrong. I don't underestimate Dr Ferrari's part in his success but Dr Ferrari had other customers as well and Dr Ferrari was not the only "guru" around. European riders had had the services of his (and others) for many years at their disposal. LA simply caught up.

Thank you DV 1976. However, let me reiterate, that it is my belief that the Big Pharma/Life Scinces echosystem access, that Lance enjoys provides him with more advanced and otherwise unavailable juice.

Ferrari is only as good as; 1) his client on drugs, 2) the newest drugs---hopefully, no other team has yet 3) some good racing luck.

When Michele Ferrari landed all three podium spots for Team Geweis in Liege Bastonge Liege in 1993, it was his unique witchcraft with EPO and other methods which caused this utter domination that day. It was Berzin, Argentin and Ballerini, I think. Anyway, he has not delivered an Italian Champion in over ten years---and maybe that is why he was recently convicted of malpractice.

Eh?

limerickman said:

Now we're moving on to dangerous territory.
The presumption is that LA simply caught up with an already doped peloton.
This is dangerous ground.

I have two contacts in the current peloton and I can tell you that not all pros
are dopeurs.
These sources are impeccable people and I have no reason to distrust their words.

It also depends how one defines doping.
What Flyer alleges is not just doping, it is Dr Frankenstein stuff.
It's taking the basic human raw material and fundamentally changing it in to someone who performs way beyond their capability.

If you're taking stuff in order to simply finish a course, tour, season - you are merely taking stuff to look after yourself.
Is this doping ?
Others take stuff and their performances dramtically improve - and to me they are the dopeurs.

I have no doubt some people will say that I have contradicted myself.
I oppose all artificial help - but I can do so in the knowledge that I could never be a contender.

But I do have sympathy for those who take stuff merely to ensure that they get a contract.
It's those who dope at the top of the sport who not only cheat their fellow competitors but they also put pressure on those further down the peloton to perform in order to earn a crust.

Yes Sir Limerickman. I agree wholeheartedly. It is and has always been about the definitions.

What is a drug? What is a synthetic hormone? What is a gene splice?

What is homeopathic? What is an IV saline feed?

What is a vitamin injection?

What is a caffeine suppository? What is a vasodilator.

What is an anti-inflamatory?

There are legitimate causes for steroids or painkillers. What about recovery? What about stimulants? What about blood doping? Who draws the line? Why do some comply and other not?

How far will a fatalistic person push the limit?

I heard Lance on Charlie Rose (soft ball hack interview) in 2000 or 2001 saying something to the effect that he: "never would put anything into his body that his body did not produce organically"

OK, fine. Growth Hormones? Testosterone?
Insulin, EPO-like proteins, Interlukins, IGF-1 spliced in a cold virus maybe?

Calf blood laced with RSR-13 and other addictives.

The problem with doping is this; "In for a penny and in for a pound. This is the law of addiction and the law that all great champions must follow.

Thus is what makes them unique.

I have it on good authority that several of the current top men in cycling do not dope.
What do I mean by do not dope ?
I mean that they do not go near EPO or HGH.
I can name them and if you look at their cycling palmares you will see cyclists who have been consistent performers throughout.

Does this mean that they take nothing artificial though ?
I cannot say - I would presume that they could well drink 10 cups of coffee after a training run.
Is 10 cups of coffee equivalent to taking EPO/HGH ?
In my book - it isn't.
if a cyclist takes 10 cups of coffee, he's looking after himself in my book.
Legally he is cheating - but in my rationale he's looking after himself.
If a cyclist is using EPO/HGH, he's cheating.
He's is using a substance to improve his performance.

I believe that in 1996 when LA was dying that he took the decision that if he recovered, he would be prepared to take whatever substances he needed to in order to win.
That's my reading.

When you face death - and come back, the limits don't exist anymore.
You make the most of everything, presumably.

This is my difficulty with LA - he attempts (since 1999) to create the perception that his success is down to his working harder than the rest of the peloton.
This is self aggrandisment and denial - and it derogatory of his fellow pros.

All pros work hard - certainly as hard as LA.
They certainly work as hard as he did when he told David Walsh in 1993 that
"I thought the Triathlon was tough but pro cycling is at another level. The suffering, the sacrifice is what I enjoy. But it's a hard life, far harder than anything you'll ever experience in sport and, perhaps, life. I train all day and I make the sacrifices - because I am prepared to do so".

I did'nt even finish reading all the posts, but really does the witch hunt ever stop, surely there must be more interesting topics to diseminate.

The bottom line is that unless some hidden information comes to light that is reliable, no one will ever know the truth.

Would i be dissapointed if he where dopping, yes.
Would my opinion of him change, not much.
At the end of it all and i actually feel sorry for all the banned cyclists that we as society have driven the need for success to such a level that they would even consider jeopordising their health for fame & fortune.

And lastly no matter how much drugs you take, the rider still has to get out of bed and onto that bike to train and race. No amount of drugs will win on their own without any discomfort or will to do so by a rider.

Do i think doping is wrong, hell yes.
Do i empathise for the pressures to succeed in their chosen careers, hell yes.
🙁

'Physically I'm not more gifted than anyone else' is Armstrong's own evaluation of himself in his first Tour, where he lost 6 minutes to Indurain in a TT (even though Armstrong felt he could TT well) and then 21 and 28 minutes on 2 days in the Alps. And this from a rider who was apparently passionate and focused and whose greatest self criticism was that he hadn't ridden very smartly.

The upper body bulk from swimming had already begun to tone down through his emphasis on cycling as a sport.

On the TT 'when you're 30 you're not going to be 9 minutes faster than you are at 21' - and yet that's almost exactly whatr has happened in Armstrong's case.

So, he lost some weight through the cancer and learned to ride smartly and that meant that he could win 6 Tours straight and ride so much faster at 30 than at 21?

micron said:

'Physically I'm not more gifted than anyone else' is Armstrong's own evaluation of himself in his first Tour, where he lost 6 minutes to Indurain in a TT (even though Armstrong felt he could TT well) and then 21 and 28 minutes on 2 days in the Alps. And this from a rider who was apparently passionate and focused and whose greatest self criticism was that he hadn't ridden very smartly.

The upper body bulk from swimming had already begun to tone down through his emphasis on cycling as a sport.

On the TT 'when you're 30 you're not going to be 9 minutes faster than you are at 21' - and yet that's almost exactly whatr has happened in Armstrong's case.

So, he lost some weight through the cancer and learned to ride smartly and that meant that he could win 6 Tours straight and ride so much faster at 30 than at 21?

6 minutes to Indurain - just about sums it up.

I watched him closely between 1992-1996, because he was an english speaking rider and naturally there was an interest to see how a rider from a non-traditional cycling nation would get on.
Rewatched the tape of the 1995 TDF last night after making some posts here
and it is shocking to see the difference between pre-cancer and post-cancer
ability.

One shot of them on stage 9 Le Grand Bornard - La Plagne.
Alez Zulle is winning the stage - with Indurain coming in second and Pantani
4th.
The camera is panning the finish of the stage - Dufaux, Jalabert pass the line.
Zberg, Totshnig, Ekimov, and others come through.
The camera switiches back out on the course and there's our friend blowing really hard and in a terrible state.
He crosses the line in with Bryneel (!) nearly 18 mins after Alex Zulle has finished.
He's dead on his feet.

Alpe D'Huez 1995 : I was at that stage - Pantani and Indurain blast up the mountain.
Pantani wins in 5hours odd.
Indurain closely behind him.
They were flying.
Rominger, Jalabert, Zulle all follow losing a couple of minutes.
Again, I saw Lance Armstrong passing me by - blowing really hard.
He eventually finishes nearly 19 mins after Pantani, in 56th place.

Both snapshots here are reflective of LA's real ability, I suggest.
What we have seen since 1999 bears no relation to 1992-1996.

Well, I think the arguments made above are full of holes, so I will point out a few.

Lance has one of the biggest aerobic engines around, always has. Read his book. He was tested at the Cooper Aerobics Center (the folks who invented the words aerobics BTW) as a teenager, perhaps 15, 16 17 years old and his VO2Max stands as the highest ever done there.

When Lance, later after winning a bunch of Tours, says he is not that gifted or unusual, it is not true and he says that for a reason! He wants people to know how hard he has worked post cancer to get the results. He makes no bones about what a lazy, slacker he was before cancer. Check out some videos in 1994 and 1995 and see his beer gut in some of the classics! He also says stuff like that to sell the image and to screw with competitors heads. Check this link re his LT and power:
http://www.jt10000.com/team/events/carmichael99/1.htm

Now, you dont win Tours just with a big VO2MAx, but it is a prerequisite.

As for the argument about 6 minutes and Indurain. Someone please check out how many 22-23 year olds were in the Tour this year and how they did against Lance. Someone please check out where Basso, Vino, Ullrich were in the Tours when they were 23. Ullrich was winning the U23 world road race, the same year Lance won the Worlds in Oslo against Big Mig.

SO yes, the weight loss, the improved pedalling technique and cadence, (check the videos of his cadence and sloppy pedalling while winning the Tour Dupont vs 1999 Tour), the specific and consistent training, doing more training than the competitors, and more desire DO all add up to the difference.

Lance, as is commonly known, trains harder than a lot of racers can race. Ask Roberto,Tyler, and Chechu. Coming out of a mountain training week in early June before the Tour in 2001, they came out with tendinitis in knees due to repetetive punishing climbing intervals in the cold--thats why they were wrapped in guaze and bandages!!

So you either believe the guy or you dont. As for being there and seeing him come in 19 minutes down on Pantani on the Alpe, thats really pretty good for a classics rider, especially since Pantani's hematocrit was probaly higher than his VO2Max in the days before the 50% rule. Where did the classics riders guys come in on Plateau de Beille this year if they were in the race at all--lets see--Weseman, Backstedt, Hammond, Rebellin? I saw where they came in on Luz Ardiden in 2004, 30-40 minutes later!!

No, Lance is clean and folks just cant stand it. Too bad, he will never ride a Tour again.

Peace

DarrylZ said:

I did'nt even finish reading all the posts, but really does the witch hunt ever stop, surely there must be more interesting topics to diseminate.

The bottom line is that unless some hidden information comes to light that is reliable, no one will ever know the truth.

Do i think doping is wrong, hell yes.
Do i empathise for the pressures to succeed in their chosen careers, hell yes.
🙁

Witchhunt, which witchhunt do you refer to?

The one were millions of advertising dollars are spent on "themes" of work-ethic = success, so buy our product. Or the witchhunt against the dirty little secrets in elite sport.

Or the Advertisements published in Time Magazine featuring Lance and Bristol Meyers Squib drugs, bragging that Lance uses their products and they have just released three new drugs in the past 11 months, anemia, muscular dystrophy and auto immune system dope? Again which mixed message is which?

Surely the banter on this forum is trace elements to the media exposure of "clean living" and "hard work" that translates into utter TDF domination.

Somehow, fans of cycling are supposed to suspend logic, common sense, and the many factual transactions which point to Lance, Inc. in fact advocating a "lifetime doping lifestlye" and being prepared to do whatever it takes to win.

When you factor in "cancer survivor", ""aggressive treatment", "successful recovery" and a fatalistic human nature, Lance immediately returned to what motivates him the most:

Winning Bike races, not family time. No epiphany.

The truth is there for all those to see. You do have to read your history on our sport and Lance's travels within it from 1990 to present.

The greatest miracle is not surviving the cancer--that is doable. Rather it is defeating the worlds greatest athletes---all of whom are on powerful drugs too---that is ridiculous.

The real commercial miracle is that many naive fans actually believe a person can win a Grand Tour w/o drugs. That is amazing indeed.

No witches found yet, just lots of drugs.