Armstrong the a-hole

"Chris" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

From http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2004/jul04/jul02news

which

Quoted message said:

contains today's press conference.

"Armstrong had several somewhat contentious exchanges with several
journalists today in Liège. When a French journalist asked Armstrong about
the possibility that he could beat Pantani's record up l'Alpe d'Huez and
proceeded to talk about the American's power output in watts, Armstrong
asked "how do you know the watts?" and went on to debunk the journalist's
supposition that "we can calculate your watts" by saying "the only way for
anybody to know the wattage is to weigh the rider and weigh the equipment
before the start. The last time I checked my weight I was the only one in
the room," Armstrong sardonically joked."

So, LA thinks it is a big secret how much he and his equipment weigh? The
health checks at the start of each Tour includes weight the of each rider
and this is published. The weight of his bike can be calculated within a

few

Quoted message said:

hundred grams. What a jackass to think these variables are not close

enough

Quoted message said:

to analyze without any need to know any proprietary or private

information.

Quoted message said:

The guy gets on my nerves worse each year and it has nothing to do with

the

Quoted message said:

phenomenon of winners being unpopular when they win "too much". I like his
style of racing but he is a real jerk these days. Damn, it is just a sport
and he should not be so damn arrogant.

Relax. Dr. Ferrari is going to call Lance tomorrow and explain it all to
him.

In article <[email hidden]>, Chris

Quoted message said:

From http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2004/jul04/jul02news which
contains today's press conference.

"Armstrong had several somewhat contentious exchanges with several
journalists today in Liège. When a French journalist asked Armstrong about
the possibility that he could beat Pantani's record up l'Alpe d'Huez and
proceeded to talk about the American's power output in watts, Armstrong
asked "how do you know the watts?" and went on to debunk the journalist's
supposition that "we can calculate your watts" by saying "the only way for
anybody to know the wattage is to weigh the rider and weigh the equipment
before the start. The last time I checked my weight I was the only one in
the room," Armstrong sardonically joked."

So, LA thinks it is a big secret how much he and his equipment weigh?

Weight is just one factor and it sounds like the journalist was trying
to reach a conclusion about Lance's watts at max effort. The idea that
the jounalist could calculate his watts, probably his max effort
wattage, is still a bit far-fetched unless you know his weight, the
exact road slope, and whether he was even going all out.

I also think it may have struck a nerve to compare the EPO-user Pantani
with himself (LA). How would you feel if your ability was being
compared with that of a cheater?

-WG

"Chris" <[email hidden]> wrote > The guy gets on my nerves
worse each year and it has nothing to do with the

Quoted message said:

phenomenon of winners being unpopular when they win "too much". I like his
style of racing but he is a real jerk these days. Damn, it is just a sport
and he should not be so damn arrogant.

Perhaps the constant doping accusations are wearing on him.

"warren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Chris

Quoted message said:

From http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2004/jul04/jul02news

which

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

contains today's press conference.

"Armstrong had several somewhat contentious exchanges with several
journalists today in Liège. When a French journalist asked Armstrong

about

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the possibility that he could beat Pantani's record up l'Alpe d'Huez and
proceeded to talk about the American's power output in watts, Armstrong
asked "how do you know the watts?" and went on to debunk the

journalist's

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

supposition that "we can calculate your watts" by saying "the only way

for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

anybody to know the wattage is to weigh the rider and weigh the

equipment

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

before the start. The last time I checked my weight I was the only one

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the room," Armstrong sardonically joked."

So, LA thinks it is a big secret how much he and his equipment weigh?

Weight is just one factor and it sounds like the journalist was trying
to reach a conclusion about Lance's watts at max effort. The idea that
the jounalist could calculate his watts, probably his max effort
wattage, is still a bit far-fetched unless you know his weight, the
exact road slope, and whether he was even going all out.

These things are all easily known as the original poster noted.

Quoted message said:

I also think it may have struck a nerve to compare the EPO-user Pantani
with himself (LA). How would you feel if your ability was being
compared with that of a cheater?

Struck a nerve, yes. But it remains to be seen who is or is not the
cheater. Remember, Marco never tested positive for EPO. We have only the
testimony of those around him.

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"warren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Chris

Quoted message said:

From http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2004/jul04/jul02news

which

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

contains today's press conference.

"Armstrong had several somewhat contentious exchanges with several
journalists today in Liège. When a French journalist asked Armstrong

about

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the possibility that he could beat Pantani's record up l'Alpe d'Huez

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

proceeded to talk about the American's power output in watts,

Armstrong

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

asked "how do you know the watts?" and went on to debunk the

journalist's

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

supposition that "we can calculate your watts" by saying "the only way

for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

anybody to know the wattage is to weigh the rider and weigh the

equipment

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

before the start. The last time I checked my weight I was the only one

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the room," Armstrong sardonically joked."

So, LA thinks it is a big secret how much he and his equipment weigh?

Weight is just one factor and it sounds like the journalist was trying
to reach a conclusion about Lance's watts at max effort. The idea that
the jounalist could calculate his watts, probably his max effort
wattage, is still a bit far-fetched unless you know his weight, the
exact road slope, and whether he was even going all out.

These things are all easily known as the original poster noted.

I guess Americans (including Armstrong?) think the French are so backwards
that they don't have the same hi-resolution GPS mapping that the US does.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I also think it may have struck a nerve to compare the EPO-user Pantani
with himself (LA). How would you feel if your ability was being
compared with that of a cheater?

Struck a nerve, yes. But it remains to be seen who is or is not the
cheater. Remember, Marco never tested positive for EPO. We have only the
testimony of those around him.

Chris said:

From http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2004/jul04/jul02news which
contains today's press conference.

"Armstrong had several somewhat contentious exchanges with several
journalists today in Liège. When a French journalist asked Armstrong about
the possibility that he could beat Pantani's record up l'Alpe d'Huez and
proceeded to talk about the American's power output in watts, Armstrong
asked "how do you know the watts?" and went on to debunk the journalist's
supposition that "we can calculate your watts" by saying "the only way for
anybody to know the wattage is to weigh the rider and weigh the equipment
before the start. The last time I checked my weight I was the only one in
the room," Armstrong sardonically joked."

Fair enough.

Quoted message said:

So, LA thinks it is a big secret how much he and his equipment weigh? The
health checks at the start of each Tour includes weight the of each rider
and this is published. The weight of his bike can be calculated within a few
hundred grams. What a jackass to think these variables are not close enough
to analyze without any need to know any proprietary or private information.

The guy gets on my nerves worse each year and it has nothing to do with the
phenomenon of winners being unpopular when they win "too much". I like his
style of racing but he is a real jerk these days. Damn, it is just a sport
and he should not be so damn arrogant.

Holy Overreaction, Batsman! You might consider that he's just giving
them a hard time, making them earn their pay. I mean, why doesn't Lance
just publish on his website every little datum so his competition can
pick through it? Keep em guessing and if they're pros they don't really
care as they're probably preoccupied with their own stats.

B. Lafferty said:

"warren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Chris

Quoted message said:

From http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2004/jul04/jul02news

which

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

contains today's press conference.

"Armstrong had several somewhat contentious exchanges with several
journalists today in Liège. When a French journalist asked Armstrong

about

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the possibility that he could beat Pantani's record up l'Alpe d'Huez and
proceeded to talk about the American's power output in watts, Armstrong
asked "how do you know the watts?" and went on to debunk the

journalist's

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

supposition that "we can calculate your watts" by saying "the only way

for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

anybody to know the wattage is to weigh the rider and weigh the

equipment

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

before the start. The last time I checked my weight I was the only one

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the room," Armstrong sardonically joked."

So, LA thinks it is a big secret how much he and his equipment weigh?

Weight is just one factor and it sounds like the journalist was trying
to reach a conclusion about Lance's watts at max effort. The idea that
the jounalist could calculate his watts, probably his max effort
wattage, is still a bit far-fetched unless you know his weight, the
exact road slope, and whether he was even going all out.

These things are all easily known as the original poster noted.

Quoted message said:

I also think it may have struck a nerve to compare the EPO-user Pantani
with himself (LA). How would you feel if your ability was being
compared with that of a cheater?

Struck a nerve, yes. But it remains to be seen who is or is not the
cheater. Remember, Marco never tested positive for EPO. We have only the
testimony of those around him.

Small difference however, he was thrown out of the Giro on the verge of
winning it again, with a 'crit level over 50% (which by the way is about
2 SD over the norm - the original proposal was to go 3 SD over norm but
the riders pushed for 2 - that is a lower crit gets you thrown out).

So while he never tested positive (since a test for EPO did not exist at
that time, the surrogate was rather damming since their is no credible
scientific explanation other than he had some "help". So for all
intense and purpose, he tested positive.

Rick

"Richard Adams" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Holy Overreaction, Batsman! You might consider that he's just giving

them a hard time, making them earn their pay. I mean, why doesn't Lance
just publish on his website every little datum so his competition can
pick through it? Keep em guessing and if they're pros they don't really
care as they're probably preoccupied with their own stats.

Can you say "apologist?'

"Chris" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I guess Americans (including Armstrong?) think the French are so backwards
that they don't have the same hi-resolution GPS mapping that the US does.

No, just too stubborn to read the directions in English.

"Chris" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

The guy gets on my nerves worse each year and it has nothing to do with the
phenomenon of winners being unpopular when they win "too much". I like his
style of racing but he is a real jerk these days. Damn, it is just a sport
and he should not be so damn arrogant.

1. If Lance gets on your nerves, perhaps you are taking the sport
of bicycle racing too seriously. It is just a sport, as you say,
so why do you get emotionally aroused because of what Lance says?

2. Reporters like to inflame controversy by presenting a
filtered version of the people they publicize. The media
can make anybody sound like an "a-hole." Remember, Lance is
not talking to you; he is talking to the annoying reporters
who are constantly in his face. If they can fluster him and
make him seem testy or foolish, then they have some great
emotionally arousing footage to show the world. You could
similarly make an otherwise friendly dog look vicious if you
provoked it first, and then started the cameras.

3. I remember reading some magazine interviews with
John Howard (a cyclist of some note back in the day who
runs training camps now) in which I was similarly
hoodwinked by unflattering media portrayals.
Later, I met John Howard in person and I got the chance
to guide him on some training rides when he was in my
city to run a seminar. I was amazed to discover he was
quite different than the person I had imagined from his
interview. He was pretty much just like all the other
bicyclists I ride with. Just a little better known than
most.

Moral of story: don't judge a bicyclist until you have
ridden with him.

-- Daniel Mocsny

Rick Hopkins said:

So while he never tested positive (since a test for EPO did not exist at
that time, the surrogate was rather damming since their is no credible
scientific explanation other than he had some "help". So for all intense
and purpose, he tested positive.

Additionally, it seems to be fairly well known that Pantani suffered
from low hematocrit following his EPO abuse. Like long term ause of
anabolic steroids, EPO abuse shuts down the body's own EPO production,
which lands one in a vicious cycle.

--

"The Danimal" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Moral of story: don't judge a bicyclist until you have
ridden with him.

Well said. Does that include Jan, or, can we continue to call him fat and
lazy?

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"Richard Adams" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Holy Overreaction, Batsman! You might consider that he's just giving

them a hard time, making them earn their pay. I mean, why doesn't Lance
just publish on his website every little datum so his competition can
pick through it? Keep em guessing and if they're pros they don't really
care as they're probably preoccupied with their own stats.

Can you say "apologist?'

Can you say, obsessed, Brian. You take you obession with Lance far
further than any of the sycophants that praise his every move could
bossible achieve.

In case you didn't know sardonic means in a mocking tone. He was
making a joke and a point, which is that to try to estimate his power
and draw a conclusion is moronic...Which it is. There are just to many
variabes.

But if you wanted to take him literally. According to
analyticcycling.com a change from 71kg to 72kg results in a 5 watt at
462/467 watts on 8% grade. This difference is aprox. 200 meters or 30
seconds in 1 hour test. I regularly flucuate 2kg in a day. A long pee
can be .25kg. Let alone the flucuation during a three week tour.

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"Richard Adams" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Holy Overreaction, Batsman! You might consider that he's just giving

them a hard time, making them earn their pay. I mean, why doesn't Lance
just publish on his website every little datum so his competition can
pick through it? Keep em guessing and if they're pros they don't really
care as they're probably preoccupied with their own stats.

Can you say "apologist?'

My apologies. to you Brian. I wrongly believed that you had started
this thread, which you did not. I stand by my belief that you have an
unhelthy obsession with Lance and doping. but the tone, in this case,
was unnecessary.

I do stand by the fact that to try to reach some conlusion about max
wattage from rough estimates is ridiculous as small variable can have
a drastic difference any resultant time and that any attempt to
deserves a good natured ribbing which is exactly what this seems to
be.

I would also comment that, the poster leaves out that lance publicly
thanked those people in the who called him and were said that La
Confidentual was bogus. and also said that he regretted the injury to
Vino. Both classy things to do.

Oh no, Chris is mad! Everyone stand clear, he finds LA's purported
arrogance annoying! Waaaahhhhh, f***ing wahhhhhhhhhh!

Grow up. I bet you would be a total a**hole (oh, wait, your posting
already proves you have achieved that status), way beyond any behavior
already attributed to LA if you had one-tenth his success.

DUMBA**. I hope you choke on his record-setting sixth victory in a
row.

App

"TM" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Chris" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I guess Americans (including Armstrong?) think the French are so

backwards

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that they don't have the same hi-resolution GPS mapping that the US

does.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No, just too stubborn to read the directions in English.

I guess you would be very surprised to know just how many of the French
speak fluent English and typically other languages as well. Multi-lingual
people are far more common in Europe than the US, even accounting for
immigrants that have a natural incentive to learn their new native language.

"Richard Adams" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Chris said:

From http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2004/jul04/jul02news

which

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

contains today's press conference.

"Armstrong had several somewhat contentious exchanges with several
journalists today in Liège. When a French journalist asked Armstrong

about

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the possibility that he could beat Pantani's record up l'Alpe d'Huez and
proceeded to talk about the American's power output in watts, Armstrong
asked "how do you know the watts?" and went on to debunk the

journalist's

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

supposition that "we can calculate your watts" by saying "the only way

for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

anybody to know the wattage is to weigh the rider and weigh the

equipment

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

before the start. The last time I checked my weight I was the only one

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the room," Armstrong sardonically joked."

Fair enough.

Quoted message said:

So, LA thinks it is a big secret how much he and his equipment weigh?

The

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

health checks at the start of each Tour includes weight the of each

rider

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and this is published. The weight of his bike can be calculated within a

few

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

hundred grams. What a jackass to think these variables are not close

enough

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to analyze without any need to know any proprietary or private

information.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The guy gets on my nerves worse each year and it has nothing to do with

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

phenomenon of winners being unpopular when they win "too much". I like

his

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

style of racing but he is a real jerk these days. Damn, it is just a

sport

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and he should not be so damn arrogant.

Holy Overreaction, Batsman!

You mean your reactionary defense of LA?

You might consider that he's just giving

Quoted message said:

them a hard time, making them earn their pay. I mean, why doesn't Lance
just publish on his website every little datum so his competition can
pick through it? Keep em guessing and if they're pros they don't really
care as they're probably preoccupied with their own stats.

Oh right. I guess you did not understand that the journalist was not asking
LA about his power, he was stating previous known results and asking LA
simply if he supposed he could beat Pantani given what is known about each
of their previous results. The journo had the nerve to include estimated
power output in watts relative to the weights of each athlete. LA was rude
as well as plain wrong in this case. I wonder if he will remember his
dumbass comment about "the last time (he) weighed (himself) as he weighs in
for the Tour today with a room full of journos, probably including the one
he was ungraciously rude to.

"Steven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Richard Adams" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

> Holy Overreaction, Batsman! You might consider that he's just giving
them a hard time, making them earn their pay. I mean, why doesn't

Lance

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

just publish on his website every little datum so his competition can
pick through it? Keep em guessing and if they're pros they don't

really

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

care as they're probably preoccupied with their own stats.

Can you say "apologist?'

Can you say, obsessed, Brian. You take you obession with Lance far
further than any of the sycophants that praise his every move could
bossible achieve.

That does not make him wrong though, now does it? Considering the ratio of
apologists to critics, I think Lafferty feels justified in leveling the
playing feild a bit.

Quoted message said:

In case you didn't know sardonic means in a mocking tone. He was
making a joke and a point, which is that to try to estimate his power
and draw a conclusion is moronic...Which it is. There are just to many
variabes.

Damn, you are kind of stupidly wrong here. The truth is that many athletes
and their coaches use steep hillclimb results to calibrate their power
meters. What about that little fact? Don't you know there is only one model
of power meter (the SRM Science version) that is more accurate than using
the performance numbers from an 8% or greater hill climb? AFAIK, Lance
either uses those same formulas or he uses a "Pro" SRM which is no more
accurate than those formulas. It happens to be a lot easier to use the SRM,
but not more accurate on a stage like the one being discussed.

Quoted message said:

But if you wanted to take him literally. According to
analyticcycling.com a change from 71kg to 72kg results in a 5 watt at
462/467 watts on 8% grade. This difference is aprox. 200 meters or 30
seconds in 1 hour test.

And how does that compare to the methods Lance uses? Isn't that the point,
whether Lance is the only one that really knows? Oh, you forgot that Lance
does not have perfect knowledge simply because he is the subject. Don't
worry, this happens all the time, especially when you fall in love with the
subject.

Quoted message said:

I regularly flucuate 2kg in a day. A long pee
can be .25kg. Let alone the flucuation during a three week tour.

Then you are not always fully hydrated or you eat like a pig rather than a
Tour contender with 4% body fat and a published weigh in that is done after
following hydration protocols (unless I am misinformed about that last
fact).

"TM" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"The Danimal" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Moral of story: don't judge a bicyclist until you have
ridden with him.

Well said. Does that include Jan, or, can we continue to call him fat and
lazy?

LOL. Exactly. Why is Lance allowed to be an [censored] but Jan can't even be
tolerated for his genetic disadvantage? The point is that there is a clear
double standard when it comes to Lance. My attitude is probably more
influenced by his apologists than what he actually does. That is known as
polarization and anyone taking part in the discussion on either side can't
claim a higher moral position. Sometimes Lance is unfairly targeted by the
doping muckrakers. I don't condone that. My issue with him has nothing to do
with any suspicions. The point I am making is that Lance was well known to
be an [censored] before he got cancer. There was no real controversy, the only
variance was the language one used in describing his "brittle" attitude. For
a few years after he bounced back to the top of the sport, he truly seemed
to change. Now that he says he no longer is obsessed with his cancer
survival, he has during the same period reverted back to "Lance Mark I" in
attitude. He never really changed but I guess those that have not followed
that sport closely for at least 10 years don't have the perspective to
understand. I do and I am trying to give you the benefit of my knowledge and
perspective. Lance is simply reverting back to what everyone agreed he was.
The thing is, a lot of his new fans are so impressed that they are blind to
the changes.

Oh well, if he does something positive for you then carry on. Please don't
emulate his attitude and treatment of people not currently in his inner
circle.