Is Lance Doping?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by lutenegger
First when you say big tour I think GT. Also when you say win I assume you mean 1st place rather than top 10. But I'm willing to play your game.

You discount the wins and placements at the Tour DuPont if the Tour Dupont was only a middle class race then how did he win versus european riders whom you hold in such high regard. He even beat other Americans who have become big names in the sport. He beat Rominger who had previously won Paris-Nice and Tirreno - Adriatico, both more than once. At that time the Dupont was considered the premier race in America. In 1996 the Dupont was upgraded by the UCI to 2.1 making it in the same class as the Midi Libre, Four Day of Dunkirk, Tour of Catalonia, and Criterium International. Additionally, in 1996 Paris-Nice, Tour of Suisse, Tirreno Adriatico, and Dauphine Libre were all ranked 2.1, they were then subsequently and deservedly raised to 2.HC. Tour De L'Avenir is a 2.5 meaning it wasn't anywhere in the league of DuPont. I can hear it now the DuPont was not as difficult, maybe your right what does the UCI know. I also wonder why you list the Giro di Lombardia under Lemond since your argument has to do with stage races, rather than one day races which GdL is.

Of course it means nothing to you that he did show steady progression from Amatuer to National to World Champion, or wins in Classics since those were only one day races. So, since you're going out of the Winner category and are using examples as wide as 2.5 to HC so will I, and help you with LA stage racing record.

1993 LA 9th Paris - Nice (2.1)
1993 LA 2nd Tour DuPont (2.3)
1993 LA 1st West Virginia Mountain Classic (2.5)

1994 LA 7th Tour de Suisse (2.1)
1994 LA 2nd Tour DuPont (2.2)

1995 LA 4th TdF Under 25 Competition
1995 LA 1st Tour DuPont (2.2)
1995 LA 10th Vuelta A Burgos (2.2)
1995 LA 1st Kmart Classic (2.4)

1996 LA 2nd Paris - Nice (2.1)
1996 LA 1st Tour DuPont (2.1)
1996 LA 2nd Ronde van Nederland (2.2)

1998 - Year after Cancer
1998 LA 4th Vuelta a Espana (GT)
1998 LA 1st Ronde van Nederland (2.1)
1998 LA 1st Tour of Luxembourg (2.2) and won Mountain Comp.
1998 LA 1st Rheinland-Pfalz Runbdahrt (2.4)

I won't go into his wins post 1998 since you believe he was doping by then.

You know limerickman after looking at it, you're right clearly no natural progression there.

I think it's mostly about a sense of urgency and also the weight loss, both of which Lance acquired from the cancer. In his words, it was the best thing that could have happened to him.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by gntlmn
I think it's mostly about a sense of urgency and also the weight loss, both of which Lance acquired from the cancer. In his words, it was the best thing that could have happened to him.

I agree, like I said attitude and aptitude wins races. It truly did mature him in many ways, and made him a better rider than he was pre-cancer. I tend to think most things athletically are possible, Armstrong is no exception he has always been a phenomenal athlete, for him to get better post cancer is not very far out of the realm of possibility. No more so than surviving the particular cancer that he had.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by lutenegger
First when you say big tour I think GT. Also when you say win I assume you mean 1st place rather than top 10. But I'm willing to play your game.

You discount the wins and placements at the Tour DuPont if the Tour Dupont was only a middle class race then how did he win versus european riders whom you hold in such high regard. He even beat other Americans who have become big names in the sport. He beat Rominger who had previously won Paris-Nice and Tirreno - Adriatico, both more than once. At that time the Dupont was considered the premier race in America. In 1996 the Dupont was upgraded by the UCI to 2.1 making it in the same class as the Midi Libre, Four Day of Dunkirk, Tour of Catalonia, and Criterium International. Additionally, in 1996 Paris-Nice, Tour of Suisse, Tirreno Adriatico, and Dauphine Libre were all ranked 2.1, they were then subsequently and deservedly raised to 2.HC. Tour De L'Avenir is a 2.5 meaning it wasn't anywhere in the league of DuPont. I can hear it now the DuPont was not as difficult, maybe your right what does the UCI know.

I also wonder why you list the Giro di Lombardia under Lemond since your argument has to do with stage races, rather than one day races which GdL is. If you want to talk Coupe du Monde how about LA in Meisterchaft von Zurich (1992-2nd, 1994-9th, 1995-10th), Liege-Bastongne-Liege (1994-2nd, 1995-6th,1996-2nd), or may San Sebastian-San Sebastian (1994-2nd, 1995 - 1st).

Of course it means nothing to you that he did show steady progression from Amatuer to National to World Champion, or wins in Classics since those were only one day races. So, since you're going out of the Winner category and are using examples as wide as 2.5 to HC so will I, and help you with LA stage racing record.

1993 LA 9th Paris - Nice (2.1)
1993 LA 2nd Tour DuPont (2.3)
1993 LA 1st West Virginia Mountain Classic (2.5)

1994 LA 7th Tour de Suisse (2.1)
1994 LA 2nd Tour DuPont (2.2)

1995 LA 4th TdF Under 25 Competition
1995 LA 1st Tour DuPont (2.2)
1995 LA 10th Vuelta A Burgos (2.2)
1995 LA 1st Kmart Classic (2.4)

1996 LA 2nd Paris - Nice (2.1)
1996 LA 1st Tour DuPont (2.1)
1996 LA 2nd Ronde van Nederland (2.2)

1998 - Year after Cancer
1998 LA 4th Vuelta a Espana (GT)
1998 LA 1st Ronde van Nederland (2.1)
1998 LA 1st Tour of Luxembourg (2.2) and won Mountain Comp.
1998 LA 1st Rheinland-Pfalz Runbdahrt (2.4)

I won't go into his wins post 1998 since you believe he was doping by then.

You know limerickman after looking at it, you're right clearly no natural progression there.

You made several erroneous statements pertaining to Indurains/
Hinaults and LeMonds progress toward their first TDF victory in an
earlier message.
I pointed out to you that all three won several stage races before winning the first TDF.
Earlier you replied about getting your facts wrong about a supposed statement where I said LA never won any stages between 1992-1996, when in fact I stated that Armstrong never won any stage races of note between 1992-1996.

You now say that his victory in the Tour DuPont and some one day victories indicated that he had the ability to dominate the TDF
after he was diagnosed and had recovered from cancer.

The level of revisionism here is startling - both yourself and Gntlm
obviously accept that LA's record since 1998 is authentic.
And you are entitled to voice that opinion.

I don't accept that LA's record has been authentic since 1998.
I believe that I have pointed out to both of you on several occasions that the statistical evidence shows that as a rider
LA was simply one of the peloton between 1992-1996 and I ask the question as to how he could have improved so dramtically
since 1998.

I do not believe that LA trains harder, sacrifices more or is more talented than the riders in the peloton.
I think Armstrong has been playing us for a fool in trying to win us over with this argument.
In trying to peddle this argument - Armstrong is being totally condescending to his other professional opponents.

I will go further.
I have spoken with several contacts in the peloton - two of whom competed against LA.
Both people have told me that LA was not regarded as ever having the potential to be a superchampion like the other TDF
winners.
And these guys competed with/against LA.
Now you can take this - or leave it : what I have told you here can neither be proved/disproved, just like the propoganda in LA's
book.

What is not in dispute is that LA was, at best a successful one day rider between 1992-1996 and a journeyman stage race rider.
The statistics PROVE that LA did not have the ability to cut it as a stage race rider between 1992-1996.

I've read all about LA's explanations for his performances between 1998-now.
I have read his supporters repeating the same condescending arguments about his commitment, his weight loss, his ability to sacrifice more that his colleagues (which is quite frankly insulting to our intelligence and to the his opponents ability to sacrifice,
to train etc).
I also listen to his supporters going on about how LA has never
failed a dope test.
if the last few days have proven anything - passing dope tests
are immaterial - Dave Millar passed every dope test too.

I think we ought to leave this discussion at that - because no one
is going to be persuaded by the others point of view.

limerickman - "You now say that his victory in the Tour DuPont and some one day victories indicated that he had the ability to dominate the TDF after he was diagnosed and had recovered from cancer."

Actually you indicated the ability to win stage races was a progression to winning GTs.

I think its funny how you say that he never won any important stage races. Then I mistakely misunderstand you as speaking about GTs. When corrected, I admit that I was wrong. You then go into a rant on how multi-TdF winners had won stage races or at least come in in the top 10. So to support my argument I point out that Lance had won or placed in many comparable stage races (UCI Classification) to these champions, including ones that you sited as apparent evidence of impending greatness.

I however am not a revisionist, when I have been incorrect I admitted it, but then went on to at least include more relevant facts to the discussion, which you continue to ignore.

I think your main problem is you do not believe that he could comeback from cancer, rather than what he did prior to 1998. I'll admit its nearly miraculous, but not totally unbelievable. I also witness someone fall in the TdF last year, break his collarbone and ride to a 4th place finish. I would have never said that would have happened either but it did. It just shows that people can beat seemingly insurmountable odds.

Incidentally, I would change my mind, and be greatly dissappointed in Armstrong if there was credible evidence. Until then I choose to believe that Cycling champions are true champions.

Continuing to take the ol' baseball bat to this dead horse for just a little while longer .....

Limerickman, for the sake of argument, say you are right. Lance used performance enhancing drugs since 1998 and that has contributed to his winning 5 TdFs. And as you mentioned, you believe the majority of the pro peloton uses performance enhancing drugs. if this is the case, that Lance is doping, and that also the majority of his competitors are doping, then how was he still able to win? Better drugs?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Jakebrake
Continuing to take the ol' baseball bat to this dead horse for just a little while longer .....

Limerickman, for the sake of argument, say you are right. Lance used performance enhancing drugs since 1998 and that has contributed to his winning 5 TdFs. And as you mentioned, you believe the majority of the pro peloton uses performance enhancing drugs. if this is the case, that Lance is doping, and that also the majority of his competitors are doping, then how was he still able to win? Better drugs?

First of all, the question of the thread concerned LA.
I do think that the majority of the peloton are using stuff.
Does this make LA the better rider ?
It's a good question.

I'll give you my theory.

I believe that LA was on the threshold of dying back in 1996/1997.
He made a recovery.
But during that time when he did not know whether he was going to live or die - he made a decision.
He made a decision that if he survived - he would do what it took to succeed regardless of the consequences.
If that meant taking drugs - so be it.
If that meant cycling for hour after hour - so be it.
If it meant failed martal relationships - so be it.

I believe that what we have seen from LA since '98 is a combination of these issues.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ds0709
Well, with the current allegations about to pop it seems its that time again for the "is Lance doping" debate. I can't imagine that a person so close to death's door would do that to his body. Maybe I am just a homer but I will leave it to all of you!

No way. You hit it... he faced death and won, and has said from the beginning that if a cycling career went away, so be it. He wanted to live. I can't see anyone trading that attitude for a win-at-any-cost attitude.

But, who knows? Many other pro atheletes do it.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by lutenegger
limerickman - "You now say that his victory in the Tour DuPont and some one day victories indicated that he had the ability to dominate the TDF after he was diagnosed and had recovered from cancer."

Actually you indicated the ability to win stage races was a progression to winning GTs.

I think its funny how you say that he never won any important stage races. Then I mistakely misunderstand you as speaking about GTs. When corrected, I admit that I was wrong. You then go into a rant on how multi-TdF winners had won stage races or at least come in in the top 10. So to support my argument I point out that Lance had won or placed in many comparable stage races (UCI Classification) to these champions, including ones that you sited as apparent evidence of impending greatness.

I however am not a revisionist, when I have been incorrect I admitted it, but then went on to at least include more relevant facts to the discussion, which you continue to ignore.

I think your main problem is you do not believe that he could comeback from cancer, rather than what he did prior to 1998. I'll admit its nearly miraculous, but not totally unbelievable. I also witness someone fall in the TdF last year, break his collarbone and ride to a 4th place finish. I would have never said that would have happened either but it did. It just shows that people can beat seemingly insurmountable odds.

Incidentally, I would change my mind, and be greatly dissappointed in Armstrong if there was credible evidence. Until then I choose to believe that Cycling champions are true champions.

You are right - when you say that I cannot understand how someone with cancer can recover and win the TDF.
You are right.

Listen, I don't want to fall out over this issue.
If you believe in LA - fair enough.
I can't state unequivocally that I am 100% right - or that you are 100% wrong.
I don't set out to try to convince you that I am right either.

Sport is about looking up to the guy/giel who can do what we can't do.
Maybe I am cynical (and God knows - we have had enough exposures in cycling to last us a lifetime).

I'll tell you something - and I am embarrased to admit this but here we go.
When I saw LA finish 4th in the Vuelta, I cried.
I cried - not because I was sad - but because he came back and did it.
This was before he published his books - or before the world at large noticed just what happened in the 98 Vuelta.

I want to believe - believe me I do.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by lutenegger
I agree, like I said attitude and aptitude wins races. It truly did mature him in many ways, and made him a better rider than he was pre-cancer. I tend to think most things athletically are possible, Armstrong is no exception he has always been a phenomenal athlete, for him to get better post cancer is not very far out of the realm of possibility. No more so than surviving the particular cancer that he had.

I keep reading from pro LA supporters (BTW I try to remain neutral) that LA's mental attitude change as a result of cancer translated into incredible performances and results. Cancer changed LA from a team leader 1993-1996 who had difficulty finishing TdF's to a dominating TdF winner 1999-2003.

After his cancer treatment LA made a comeback to training in October 1997. He must have satisfied himself and his team that he was race ready as he entered the European spring races in January to March 1998 and fared very poorly being dropped on many occasions. He was so dejected and depressed he gave cycling away and garaged his bike.

Here is a copy of an article relating to this period:

In January 1998, Armstrong moved to Europe to train with the U.S. Postal pro cycling team, hoping to regain his form after treatment for the testicular cancer that almost took his life.

"I was riding with buried doubts, and some buried resentments, too," Armstrong recalls in his autobiography, It's Not About the Bike: My Journey Back to Life. Some less-than-stellar finishes in early spring European races sent Armstrong into a tailspin. He quit the U.S. Postal team, flew home to Texas and became a self-described bum who drank too much beer, ate too much Mexican food and channel surfed his way through the day.

Armstrong might still be on the couch today, a forgotten footnote in the history of sports, if it weren't for his visit to the Blue Ridge High Country.

In April 1998, Armstrong, overweight and out of shape, traveled to Boone in a last-ditch effort to get his cycling career back on track.

In July 1998, LA made his second comeback in European racing and won his first event.

Question is if cancer made this attitude change and steeled him mentally to produce more from his body, why did it fail him in training from October 1997 and in competition from January to March 1998?

An overweight, out of shape and defeated LA in April 1998 had given his competitors 7 months start in training and competition but was able in two or so months to commence from a low base and do a total form reversal.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by gntlmn
The event in question, the Tour de France, is televised worldwide to every country in the world. It is the biggest sporting event in the world as far as viewership goes. How is it that you are nit picking about which countries? Even you admit it is illegal in some. So enough with that point because you have agreed with me by your statements.

The crime I was talking about is defrauding the general public and the sponsors, not the crime of doing drugs which may or may not be illegal with the governments of the various countries.

"Sporting Fraud", as far as I am aware, only became illegal in Italy in relation to drugs in 2000. Doping was added to the list that year. Marco Pantani successfully appealed his conviction as his conviction related to a 1995 incident when the Italian law relating to sporting fraud did not include drugs.

I have done a search but are unable to find any reference about sporting fraud law to any other country.

Did any of these events relating to LA and Ms O'Reilly occur in Italy after 2000? I believe she left USPS in 2000.

I am not nit picking about countries. The laws of the country relating to drugs where these incidents occurred are very relevant if you are saying Ms O'Reilly is of disrepute if she is a law breaker.

You now say it is not about (the crime of) drugs but defrauding the general public and sponsors. I am at a loss to know how they have been defrauded by Ms O'Reilly. Is there a precedent?

[QUOTE]You sum up very aptly the ultimate weasel approach that Ms. O'Reilly has taken to discredit Lance.

"To be an accessory there must be a crime. So how can Ms O'Reilly be involved in covering up criminal acts if no crimes were committed?"

This is precisely the point I was making. She did not investigate the facts at the time of their occurrence because she wanted to have the opportunity to use this fact against Lance and the team later without having to worry about whether there is any truth to the implications. If she would have gone to the authorities immediately, as she should have done, this whole thing would have played out differently. If she had known that the vials contained banned substances, then she would have been concealing a crime, the crime being a defrauding of the parties mentioned above. She chose not to make any waves, to keep her job and suck her paycheck off the employer while biding her time to present this "evidence" at the most opportune time, which turns out to have been long after she was fired (or dismissed) from USPS and shortly before the Tour de France.[/QUOTE]

If there was a crime for Ms O'Reilly to report, it could only have been in Italy from 2000 and after. Unless of course you can point us to the non drugs related crime of defrauding the general public and sponsors.

[QUOTE]The reference to employer/employee relations has to do with the fact that she used to work for USPS as a masseuse. Therefore, there was an employer/employee relationship. As a former employee who may have been canned by USPS, she may have felt a grievance and was thus disgruntled. She may have then gone to an attorney to find out if legal action might be taken against USPS, and the attorney would tell her no. But as a consolation, she may have also mentioned suspicious vials and asked what can be done with that information. And from there, this whole thing about disclosing something which she claims to have had but didn't know what it was, etc. came out. It's pretty weak as far as believability, but it sure has a maximum impact on the team and Lance. And what cost to her? Probably none, and she is generating a lot of publicity for herself. I wouldn't be surprised if she makes at least some money out of this situation.[/QUOTE]

Lot of speculation and "what ifs" on your part but still does not clarify what you originally meant to convey. All starting from "a former employee who may have been canned by USPS." A contrast in glowing references about Ms O'Reilly when she left USPS in 2000 to vague references by LA in 2004 about issues she had with the total team forcing the team to let her go.

Quoted post said:

I know that in this country, the USA, it is very, very difficult to sue successfully a publisher for what an author writes in a book. That's why they can get away with only a few people to point to as sources. These sources may completely lack credibility, but they don't care. They proceed to conjure up a whole bunch of nonsense that people eagerly buy and some even believe it. But that's the way it goes.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by limerickman
[B]

I do not believe that LA trains harder, sacrifices more or is more talented than the riders in the peloton.
I think Armstrong has been playing us for a fool in trying to win us over with this argument.
In trying to peddle this argument - Armstrong is being totally condescending to his other professional opponents.
][/QUOTE]

How is he saying that he trains hard is being condescending?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by limerickman

I also listen to his supporters going on about how LA has never
failed a dope test.
if the last few days have proven anything - passing dope tests
are immaterial - Dave Millar passed every dope test too.

I think we ought to leave this discussion at that - because no one
is going to be persuaded by the others point of view.

Actually, I believe Limerickman is from Ireland. 🙂

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by jcjordan
How is he saying that he trains hard is being condescending?



So all riders are guilty, no matter what. Sounds like bitter frenchman to me.:🙁

I am Irish.

Please read what I posted "I do not believe that LA trains harder, sacrifices more or is more talented than the riders in the peloton.
I think Armstrong has been playing us for a fool in trying to win us over with this argument.
In trying to peddle this argument - Armstrong is being totally condescending to his other professional opponents."

I did not say that Armstrong was condescending when he stated
that he trains hard - I said he was condescending to his opponents when he states, in his books, that he trains HARDER,
SACRIFICES MORE, than his fellow professionals.
How does LA know that he trains harder than his colleagues ?

LA peddles the fact that he supposedly trains harder, sacrifices more than his fellow professionals - and this, in part, explains why he has greatly improved since 1998.
I don't believe that LA trains harder and sacrifices more than his fellow professionals.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by limerickman
I am Irish.

Please read what I posted "I do not believe that LA trains harder, sacrifices more or is more talented than the riders in the peloton.
I think Armstrong has been playing us for a fool in trying to win us over with this argument.
In trying to peddle this argument - Armstrong is being totally condescending to his other professional opponents."

I did not say that Armstrong was condescending when he stated
that he trains hard - I said he was condescending to his opponents when he states, in his books, that he trains HARDER,
SACRIFICES MORE, than his fellow professionals.
How does LA know that he trains harder than his colleagues ?

LA peddles the fact that he supposedly trains harder, sacrifices more than his fellow professionals - and this, in part, explains why he has greatly improved since 1998.
I don't believe that LA trains harder and sacrifices more than his fellow professionals.

I might sound like a broken record when I keep repeating this, but the following is most relevant for Lance's success: 1) reduced weight, 2) genetic advantage at the cellular level which permits him to train harder without lactic acid buildup.

Now I am going to say that Lance trains harder simply because he CAN. In other words, other riders may TRY to train as hard as Lance, but their bodies will break down instead of improve due to lactic acid buildup. So when Lance says he is training harder than the other riders, it is not that he is more virtuous than the others or more dedicated than the others. I think this is what you take issue with, and actually, I agree with you on this point. There are plenty of other pro riders who have extreme desire to win and will intend to work as hard to do so and go to whatever extremes it takes to get results within the rules, but they don't have this genetic advantage. Therefore, they will fail to push themselves as hard as Lance. This genetic fact about Lance was known way before he got cancer and was a huge factor in making him team leader when he joined Motorola in the early 1990's. It has been a key factor in getting him to top form since his recovery.

Even with this advantage, many before he got cancer will say that he did not have the mental attitude to be a gc contender because you have to still be disciplined to be truly successful. You cannot rely too much on your gifts; you have to be consistent in training. He lacked that consistency then, but he has somehow managed to become much more disciplined since then.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by VeloFlash
"Sporting Fraud", as far as I am aware, only became illegal in Italy in relation to drugs in 2000. Doping was added to the list that year. Marco Pantani successfully appealed his conviction as his conviction related to a 1995 incident when the Italian law relating to sporting fraud did not include drugs.

I have done a search but are unable to find any reference about sporting fraud law to any other country.

Did any of these events relating to LA and Ms O'Reilly occur in Italy after 2000? I believe she left USPS in 2000.

I am not nit picking about countries. The laws of the country relating to drugs where these incidents occurred are very relevant if you are saying Ms O'Reilly is of disrepute if she is a law breaker.

You now say it is not about (the crime of) drugs but defrauding the general public and sponsors. I am at a loss to know how they have been defrauded by Ms O'Reilly. Is there a precedent?

If there was a crime for Ms O'Reilly to report, it could only have been in Italy from 2000 and after. Unless of course you can point us to the non drugs related crime of defrauding the general public and sponsors.

[/B]

Lot of speculation and "what ifs" on your part but still does not clarify what you originally meant to convey. All starting from "a former employee who may have been canned by USPS." A contrast in glowing references about Ms O'Reilly when she left USPS in 2000 to vague references by LA in 2004 about issues she had with the total team forcing the team to let her go.

But the proceedings are in France and UK. Proceedings in UK are said to be plaintiff friendly in defamation cases. [/B]

Actually, I thought I was being pretty clear when I said that O'Reilly has walked a very fine line. She is not guilty of any crimes because of the way she has presented the suspicions. Whether she would have been guilty if she had done it any other way is a matter of speculation, and this is what you are doing when you go into the detail of the various laws in different countries and when you refer to Pantani. What I said is that she did not break laws because she pleads ignorance of any incriminating act or incriminating knowledge. Therefore, it doesn't matter whether laws exist that would prosecute her for sporting fraud if she didn't actually cross the line. Do you see what I'm saying? She is drawing light on suspicions, not incontestible evidence of rule breaking.

If I start going into what if's as to how things would have turned out if she had altered what she had done, this will get complicated. I did begin to talk that way in another post to explain to you, and now you are saying I am not making clear what I meant to convey. Well, I'm not going that route again.

Ms. O'Reilly might be voicing complete falsehoods. None of the claims she made might be true, except that she used to work for USPS. Then again, the claims might be true, but these facts she presents do not prove that any doping occured. Her lack of knowledge can also be used as a defense against participating in sporting fraud, IF THIS PERTAINS. It's not relevant whether it pertains or not because she did not participate in it. She claims suspicion, but no knowledge. Therefore, do you see why I say you are nit picking about what countries have sporting fraud laws? It does not apply to her in this case. This might be different if she had approached this whole thing differently in 1999, but she didn't. If she had, then we would have the discussion you posed above. Otherwise, there's no point.

At any rate, she is garnering a lot of publicity for herself without much chance of repercussion. In her country, she may even be held as a hero for this. She wouldn't if she were in America.

Here's Lance's version of what she says quoted from Statesman.com in the article of June 27, 2004 entitled, "Lance Mentally Ready for France."

"I know (the book)'ll be interesting if you also like to read about two-headed babies, UFOs and the fact that Osama bin Laden is playing golf in Las Vegas," Armstrong said. "They're all interesting tidbits. But they're not factual."

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by gntlmn


Now I am going to say that Lance trains harder simply because he CAN. In other words, other riders may TRY to train as hard as Lance, but their bodies will break down instead of improve due to lactic acid buildup. So when Lance says he is training harder than the other riders, it is not that he is more virtuous than the others or more dedicated than the others. I think this is what you take issue with, and actually, I agree with you on this point. There are plenty of other pro riders who have extreme desire to win and will intend to work as hard to do so and go to whatever extremes it takes to get results within the rules, but they don't have this genetic advantage. Therefore, they will fail to push themselves as hard as Lance.

I am glad that you agree that LA's statements do seem to come across as being derogatory of his fellow professionals training etc.

And I hear that point that you are making - that having a better,
more robust physiology that he can do more training than others.
Perhaps this is what he meant when he comments about his
opponents training - it's just that he is unable to articulate it as well as you have - and without being derogatory to his opponents.
It's a valid point, Gntlmn.
I hadn't considered it from the angle that you have suggested here.

HA!

Lance does train better than anyone else. This will be obvious when he wins again this year.

Here's some interesting details from an article about Chris Carmicheal Training. I think one of the key factors for Lance is his LT. Clearly when others are at their limits in the mountains at their LT, Lance is able to pull away because his LT is higher. One thing the chart doesn't show is how his LT has changed over time, but certainly the higher watts at LT could be due partly to higher LT. I don't see anything here that would suggest he is performing outside of himself based on these numbers going back to 93. Also remember that Chris has been with Lance for a long time and would know all the details of what he is or is not doing. So when you call Lance a doper you would have to put Carmicheal and many others in with him.

Frankly based on what he went through with his cancer I can't imagine he would even consider putting a needle in his arm.

You can read the whole thing at: http://www.jt10000.com/team/events/carmichael99/1.htm

A VO2max test identifies the maximum aerobic capacity of an athlete but Carmichael does not agree that VO2max is key benchmark for real endurance sport.

Rather, a key indicator that is closely related to racing performance is power produced at lactate threshold (LT).

Lance Armstrong's Physical Development
Year LT power (watts) VO2max
1993 342 78.9
1994 364 74.2
1995 381 73.8
1996 403 72.2
1997 263 64.1
1999 416 77.1

Note that for Lance Armstrong, there was no positive relation between VO2max and his performance. Indeed, his VO2 max actually went down as he became more aerobically efficient -- that is as his LT power increased, VO2max dropped and race performances improved. Watts per kilogram of body weight at LT is a critical value to see how physically competitive a rider is

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by limerickman
First of all, the question of the thread concerned LA.
I do think that the majority of the peloton are using stuff.
Does this make LA the better rider ?
It's a good question.

I'll give you my theory.

I believe that LA was on the threshold of dying back in 1996/1997.
He made a recovery.
But during that time when he did not know whether he was going to live or die - he made a decision.
He made a decision that if he survived - he would do what it took to succeed regardless of the consequences.
If that meant taking drugs - so be it.
If that meant cycling for hour after hour - so be it.
If it meant failed martal relationships - so be it.

I believe that what we have seen from LA since '98 is a combination of these issues.

I am now incline to believe that the majority if not all elite cyclist are doping. Furthermore I think it's probable that lot's of armatures do as well. I hope not but I think that it's probable.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Fixey
I voted yes on this, I am definatly not a LA fan, Stephen Swart is a compatriate of mine and I am TOTALY MIFFED at this book. Its the timing.....it just plain sucks. to publish just days from the start of the TDF is great for publicity but risks ruining this years race. Not only does it throw doubt on the result if LA loses but it brings a negative spotlight onto our already besmudged sport in the hour of what could be our greatest moment. This year coud be the best tour in resent times and I will hate with a vengence anything that risks that, especialy if it is soly for comercial greed. (the timeing, not the book itself)

I hope he's shooting up too. No wonder the other countries hate us!!! Not only can we beat your socks off but it can be done after recovering from a deadly illness(cancer). Give me a break!!! Sounds like a daytime tv talkshow topic. What else is he going to do anyway? Biking is not always pleasant, I've ridden in the rain, snow, sleet ect... but i continue to do it because i like it not because i have some superhuman will. There, I've "vented".