evolution of a pro-cyclist....

Callistus Valerius said:

There is no doubt that the cyclists at the tdf are the best of us, but how
much better is the question. When they are young they are "chosen" because
they're a hair better than the rest of us. Then they disappear into the
pro-cycling world. We of course continue to train, like they do, but then
we soon discover that they aren't still a hair better than us, but twice or
three times faster than us. What happened? Was it Carmichael training
techniques that made them so much better, and they had a team that would pay
for this enhanced training that they do? Or is it because.............as we
are now finding out, that they have been introduced to a so and so Dr.
Frankenstein, that re-made them, better than before, and much faster.
Mixing, in his labs, custom formulas, after much testing of the bodies, the
exact mixtures that will turn this above average cyclist, into a
super-human. So now we are at the point that we want to get rid of these
Frankenstein's, what will we have then? Will people continue to watch the
European Tours, and put up with Liggett on Versus, or buy Cycling world
magazine, if the heros are only a hair better than us on a bike.

Well, Carmichael has first hand experience with blod doping from the
1984 Olympics. I guess he knows what he is doing.

--
Morten Reippuert Knudsen :-) <http://blog.reippuert.dk>

Merlin Works CR-3/2.5 & Campagnolo Chorus 2007.

Quoted message said:

So now we are at the point that we want to get rid of these
Frankenstein's, what will we have then? Will people continue to watch the
European Tours, and put up with Liggett on Versus, or buy Cycling world
magazine, if the heros are only a hair better than us on a bike.

C'mon, you've posted far better than this. You make it sound like the only
thing separating the 'Tour riders from yourself and others here are access
to doping expertise. Right. I know it's a troll, and I shouldn't take it
seriously, but there's a world of difference between a clean ProTour
cyclists and anyone posting here. A much larger difference, I would say,
than between a typical clean ProTour cyclist and one who dopes.

Quoted message said:

There is no doubt that the cyclists at the tdf are the best of us, but how
much better is the question. When they are young they are "chosen"
because
they're a hair better than the rest of us.

There is some evidence that ProTour cyclists aren't always the brightest
bulb in the room; perhaps that's where they come within being a hair better?

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

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

Quoted message said:

There is no doubt that the cyclists at the tdf are the best of us, but how
much better is the question. When they are young they are "chosen"
because
they're a hair better than the rest of us. Then they disappear into the
pro-cycling world. We of course continue to train, like they do, but then
we soon discover that they aren't still a hair better than us, but twice
or
three times faster than us. What happened? Was it Carmichael training
techniques that made them so much better, and they had a team that would
pay
for this enhanced training that they do? Or is it because.............as
we
are now finding out, that they have been introduced to a so and so Dr.
Frankenstein, that re-made them, better than before, and much faster.
Mixing, in his labs, custom formulas, after much testing of the bodies,
the
exact mixtures that will turn this above average cyclist, into a
super-human. So now we are at the point that we want to get rid of these
Frankenstein's, what will we have then? Will people continue to watch the
European Tours, and put up with Liggett on Versus, or buy Cycling world
magazine, if the heros are only a hair better than us on a bike.

The physical difference is only part reason pros are better. And I don't
think it is as significant as most believe.

There is a n element of "wild hair up their butt" that a normal person
doesn't possess. Their ability to sacrifice all for success. That sacrifice
is broad, it's from long and terribly arduous training sessions to
increasing the dosage beyond the physicians recommended prescription.

To be at the absolute top of anything there needs to be a couple of screws
lightened.

I thought Shapiro was the alternate. Carmichael probably watched the
races from his apartment.

On Jul 27, 7:46 am, Morten Reippuert Knudsen<[email hidden]> wrote:
Well, Carmichael has first hand experience with blod doping from the

Quoted message said:

1984 Olympics. I guess he knows what he is doing.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not to argue with you, Ron, but Karen Kurreck had a full time job when
she won the Worlds ITT. She was supposed to be back to work on the Monday after
and got to stay an extra day or so, as I recall. But you're pretty much right.

In case you missed it - there were no women's "pros" when Karen won the
worlds.

And???? In case you missed it, no one was talking about "pro" or "not pro' -
besides, could you tell me how many of the other women that she beat that day had
full time day jobs that weren't cycling?

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

There is some evidence that ProTour cyclists aren't always the brightest
bulb in the room; perhaps that's where they come within being a hair better?

Basically, I am to smart to hit a major league fastball.

--
Michael Press