Armstrong the a-hole

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

Quoted message said:

From cyclingnews.comnews.phpOpen ↗
04/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 cyclingnews.comnews.phpOpen ↗
04/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 cyclingnews.comnews.phpOpen ↗
ul04/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 cyclingnews.comnews.phpOpen ↗
/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 cyclingnews.comnews.phpOpen ↗
04/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 cyclingnews.comnews.phpOpen ↗
l04/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

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Rick Hopkins
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

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

Quoted message said:

Chris said:

From cyclingnews.comnews.phpOpen ↗
ul04/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.

"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.

"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.

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

Quoted message said:

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

news:<[email hidden]-
nk.net>...

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).