Riis just killed pro-cycling.....

  • Thread starter Crescentius Vespasianus
  • Start date



On Tue, 29 May 2007 22:32:52 -0700, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I doubt that's the case; it's probably very difficult to be the "better
>doper" and not leave a trail of crumbs for others to follow.

Au contraire. Just as better and more meticulous coaching can help a
rider, so can very carefully designed doping that really tailors the
medication to the riders form.

And in terms of crumbs, doing doping better only requires one or two
more people -- mainly a dedicated doctor and a soigneur working only
for you. In some ways, that makes it less likely to be caught,
because if other riders/docotrs/soigneurs are caught and start
spilling beans, they won't have anything to do with your program.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> And in terms of crumbs, doing doping better only requires one or two
> more people -- mainly a dedicated doctor and a soigneur working only
> for you. In some ways, that makes it less likely to be caught,
> because if other riders/docotrs/soigneurs are caught and start
> spilling beans, they won't have anything to do with your program.

So having a Ferrari is like banking at a Swiss bank.
 
On Wed, 30 May 2007 12:23:29 +0200, Donald Munro
<[email protected]> wrote:

>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> And in terms of crumbs, doing doping better only requires one or two
>> more people -- mainly a dedicated doctor and a soigneur working only
>> for you. In some ways, that makes it less likely to be caught,
>> because if other riders/docotrs/soigneurs are caught and start
>> spilling beans, they won't have anything to do with your program.
>
>So having a Ferrari is like banking at a Swiss bank.

Having a Ferrari, your own mechanic and your own garage.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 29 May 2007 22:32:52 -0700, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I doubt that's the case; it's probably very difficult to be the "better
>>doper" and not leave a trail of crumbs for others to follow.
>
> Au contraire. Just as better and more meticulous coaching can help a
> rider, so can very carefully designed doping that really tailors the
> medication to the riders form.
>
> And in terms of crumbs, doing doping better only requires one or two
> more people -- mainly a dedicated doctor and a soigneur working only
> for you. In some ways, that makes it less likely to be caught,
> because if other riders/docotrs/soigneurs are caught and start
> spilling beans, they won't have anything to do with your program.
> --
> JT
I agree, if Lance doped, like the rest of the peleton, he would be the best
at it. There has been a lot written about his total control of all aspects
of this training, every calorie measured, every watt of output accounted
for, he drove the efforts of TREK engineering, every thread of his Nike
reduced-drag clothing. It's been said that he set new standards in all
aspects of training/racing. And although being the most drug tested athlete
ever, I think his amazing machine-like ability to micro manage all these
aspects of his body and environment could allow him to get by. That is...if
he doped. :)
jb
 

> I doubt that's the case; it's probably very difficult to be the "better
> doper" and not leave a trail of crumbs for others to follow.

dumbass,

two weeks ago you could've said the same thing about riis, zabel,
aldag.

in the case of armstrong you also have the words of swart, the
connection to ferrari and LNDD results and admission of doping on his
team.

plus you have the rumoured valencia blood bank and the blue cooler
with lafferty's soul.
 
On May 30, 7:55 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> plus you have the rumoured valencia blood bank and the blue cooler
> with lafferty's soul.


Since LANCE has retired, we can call the blue cooler "Dead Man's
Chest."
 
Riis's admission that he did dope has damaged the sport, but has by no
means killed it. But so long as cycling allows riders who have been
found positive to race again then more sponsors will leave the sport.
This is why it's so important for cycling to adopt a first offence
lifetime ban policy. Also this whole WADA drug testing body issue has
to be resolved. I am beginning to believe that a new anti-doping
organization needs to be formed and UCI should disassociate it.self
from WADA



On May 25, 4:14 pm, "Crescentius Vespasianus" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Riis just killed the sport known as pro-cycling. The European police in
> Italy and France were in the end correct and the people who criticized them
> were wrong. I think David Millar was the first to crack under those warm
> interrogation lights. In the end he told them all they needed to know about
> this cycling-Mafia. Kudos to all of the European police agencies, in
> cracking this Mafia wide open for all to see. All that **** about these
> guys going up grades >8% at 26 mph were simply an illusion. Where does
> Carmichael go now, when people now know it wasn't his training, but what he
> had in the medicine bag. What about Liggett, will he now return to being a
> shoe salesman? Trautman can now compare his steroid perfected Yankee team
> to the EPO perfected CSC team. It was the perfect illusion,......all of it.
> We should all give them a giant round of applause for this magic trick of
> the century called pro-cycling.
 
[email protected] wrote:

> Riis's admission that he did dope has damaged the sport, but has by no
> means killed it.

Dumbass,
It must be dead. There was hardly a soul on the Zoncolan yesterday.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> But so long as cycling allows riders who have been
> found positive to race again then more sponsors will leave the sport.
> This is why it's so important for cycling to adopt a first offence
> lifetime ban policy.

*****. I'm in favor of the death penalty. If we want to clean up
the sport we need to stop screwing around.

Bob Schwartz
 
On 31 May 2007 00:36:31 -0700, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Riis's admission that he did dope has damaged the sport, but has by no
>means killed it. But so long as cycling allows riders who have been
>found positive to race again then more sponsors will leave the sport.

As in that's why no company buys ads or makes sponsorship deals with football,
futbol, baseball? Because they only suspend players for a few months on a first
offense. Get it through your head, it ain't the dope that disgusts them it's the
drama, confusion and internecine legal battles.

>This is why it's so important for cycling to adopt a first offence
>lifetime ban policy. Also this whole WADA drug testing body issue has
>to be resolved. I am beginning to believe that a new anti-doping
>organization needs to be formed and UCI should disassociate it.self
>from WADA

For all the wrong reasons you come to the right conclusion.

Ron




>
>
>
>On May 25, 4:14 pm, "Crescentius Vespasianus" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> Riis just killed the sport known as pro-cycling. The European police in
>> Italy and France were in the end correct and the people who criticized them
>> were wrong. I think David Millar was the first to crack under those warm
>> interrogation lights. In the end he told them all they needed to know about
>> this cycling-Mafia. Kudos to all of the European police agencies, in
>> cracking this Mafia wide open for all to see. All that **** about these
>> guys going up grades >8% at 26 mph were simply an illusion. Where does
>> Carmichael go now, when people now know it wasn't his training, but what he
>> had in the medicine bag. What about Liggett, will he now return to being a
>> shoe salesman? Trautman can now compare his steroid perfected Yankee team
>> to the EPO perfected CSC team. It was the perfect illusion,......all of it.
>> We should all give them a giant round of applause for this magic trick of
>> the century called pro-cycling.
>
 
[email protected] wrote:
>> But so long as cycling allows riders who have been
>> found positive to race again then more sponsors will leave the sport.
>> This is why it's so important for cycling to adopt a first offence
>> lifetime ban policy.

Bob Schwartz wrote:
> *****. I'm in favor of the death penalty. If we want to clean up
> the sport we need to stop screwing around.

You could always go the moslem route and cut off the testicles of anybody
caught with patches on.
 
in message <[email protected]>, Tom Grosman
('[email protected]') wrote:

> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de
> news: [email protected]...
> | >> Whether or not he doped, he beat the other guys for the same reasons
> | >> he would
> | >> have beaten them if nobody ever doped. Most of those reasons are
> | >> pretty well
> | >> known and are significant.
> | >
> | > You have absolutely no way of knowing that any more than what riders
> such
> | > as Hampsten and Motet (as examples) might have done without the drug
> | > culture in cycling.
> |
> | I see a few options here-
> |
> | #1: Nobody doped, and Lance won because he was the better rider.
> | #2: Many other riders doped but not Lance, who won because he was the
> better
> | rider.
> | #3: Lance doped but none of his rivals did, so Lance won because he
> | #doped. 4: Most riders, including Lance, doped... and Lance won because
> | #he was
> the
> | better rider.
> |
>
> #5 Most riders, including Lance, doped and Lance won because he was the
> better doper.

I am not saying this is the case, but...

#6 Many riders, including Lance, doped, but Lance was the only one being
treated for cancer.

Many of the drugs used in cancer recovery are performance enhancing.

I think it's undoubted that Armstrong had exceptional motivation,
exceptional will to win - was hungrier than most of the competition and
stayed hungrier longer. But in itself that isn't enough, any more than a
superb physique is enough. He also had a superb physique... but I don't
honestly believe he was 'clean', except in the special sense that I think
all his dope/medication was very probably clinically justified by his
condition.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

I'm fed up with Life 1.0. I never liked it much and now it's getting
me down. I think I'll upgrade to MSLife 97 -- you know, the one that
comes in a flash new box and within weeks you're crawling with bugs.
 
Simon Brooke wrote:

>> | #3: Lance doped but none of his rivals did, so Lance won because he
>> | #doped. 4: Most riders, including Lance, doped... and Lance won because
>> | #he was
>> the
>> | better rider.
>> |


If my hematocrit is normally 38, and I boost it to 49.9, while yours is normally 47, and you boost it to 49.9, this may convert me from a relatively weaker, to a relatively stronger, rider. There's no basis to claim "if they all dope, the better rider still wins".

Additionally, Fuentes was charging a substantial fee for his services. Obviously, there are different levels of doping: few could have afforded Fuentes. God knows what someone of Ferrari's reputation would have charged.

Dan
 
Dan Connelly wrote:
> God knows what someone of Ferrari's reputation would have
> charged.

I believe Rominger, at the time the world's #1 ranked cyclist,
was paying 10%.

Bob Schwartz
 
On Thu, 31 May 2007 14:24:09 -0700, Dan Connelly
<d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> wrote:

>Simon Brooke wrote:
>
>>> | #3: Lance doped but none of his rivals did, so Lance won because he
>>> | #doped. 4: Most riders, including Lance, doped... and Lance won because
>>> | #he was
>>> the
>>> | better rider.
>>> |
>
>
>If my hematocrit is normally 38, and I
> boost it to 49.9, while yours is normally 47,
> and you boost it to 49.9, this may convert
> me from a relatively weaker,
> to a relatively stronger, rider. There's no basis
> to claim "if they all dope, the better rider still wins".

BINGO

JT


--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Simon Brooke wrote:
>
>>> | #3: Lance doped but none of his rivals did, so Lance won because he
>>> | #doped. 4: Most riders, including Lance, doped... and Lance won
>>> because
>>> | #he was the better rider.
>
> If my hematocrit is normally 38, and I boost it to 49.9, while yours is
> normally 47, and you boost it to 49.9, this may convert me from a
> relatively weaker, to a relatively stronger, rider. There's no basis to
> claim "if they all dope, the better rider still wins".
>
> Additionally, Fuentes was charging a substantial fee for his services.
> Obviously, there are different levels of doping: few could have afforded
> Fuentes. God knows what someone of Ferrari's reputation would have
> charged.

I don't follow you here. I suspect you didn't mean to include the second
"49.9" sentence.

But here is the problem - when Lance was winning the Tour his hematocrit was
apparently around 38%. And hematocrit alone is NOT significant. Total blood
volume is important and someone with a large blood volume and 38% can easily
be more enduring than someone with a significantly lower volume and 49.9%.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Jim Boyer" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Tue, 29 May 2007 22:32:52 -0700, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>I doubt that's the case; it's probably very difficult to be the "better
> >>doper" and not leave a trail of crumbs for others to follow.
> >
> > Au contraire. Just as better and more meticulous coaching can help a
> > rider, so can very carefully designed doping that really tailors the
> > medication to the riders form.
> >
> > And in terms of crumbs, doing doping better only requires one or two
> > more people -- mainly a dedicated doctor and a soigneur working only
> > for you. In some ways, that makes it less likely to be caught,
> > because if other riders/docotrs/soigneurs are caught and start
> > spilling beans, they won't have anything to do with your program.
> > --
> > JT
> I agree, if Lance doped, like the rest of the peleton, he would be the best
> at it. There has been a lot written about his total control of all aspects
> of this training, every calorie measured, every watt of output accounted
> for, he drove the efforts of TREK engineering, every thread of his Nike
> reduced-drag clothing. It's been said that he set new standards in all
> aspects of training/racing. And although being the most drug tested athlete
> ever, I think his amazing machine-like ability to micro manage all these
> aspects of his body and environment could allow him to get by. That is...if
> he doped. :)
> jb

So when do you think his book "If I did it..." comes out?

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
 
On May 31, 1:40 pm, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Tom Grosman
> ('[email protected]') wrote:

>
> > #5 Most riders, including Lance, doped and Lance won because he was the
> > better doper.
>
> I am not saying this is the case, but...
>
> #6 Many riders, including Lance, doped, but Lance was the only one being
> treated for cancer.
>
> Many of the drugs used in cancer recovery are performance enhancing.
>
> I think it's undoubted that Armstrong had exceptional motivation,
> exceptional will to win - was hungrier than most of the competition and
> stayed hungrier longer. But in itself that isn't enough, any more than a
> superb physique is enough. He also had a superb physique... but I don't
> honestly believe he was 'clean', except in the special sense that I think
> all his dope/medication was very probably clinically justified by his
> condition.
>

As Chung has pointed out several times, the whole
L'Equipe-LNDD-1999 retroactive test business made
it into the papers because: Ressiot, the L'Equipe
reporter, asked Armstrong to let him see his UCI
files to show whether or not LA had a TUE
(therapeutic use exemption) for EPO, and presumably
other PEDs. Armstrong did not, (which I guess is
why he felt free to let Ressiot look in the file)
so one has to assume that if he was doping, he was
doping on the same playing field as the others, not
with a secret TUE get-out-of-dope-jail-free card.
He may have had the best doctors money could buy,
but that is a different issue.

To my knowledge, after his cancer went into remission
there would not be medical justification for
continued EPO treatment.

Another question is whether the TUEs were really
what Ressiot was interested in; since he appears to
have had the LNDD documents with the sample codes
already. As Chung likes to imply, if Ressiot had
been thinking, he shouldn't have needed the UCI
numbers since IIRC all of the tests from the first
stage were positive. That he wanted the numbers
perhaps suggests he wanted confirmation, he was
specifically after LA, he didn't know what he was
doing, or some combination thereof.

Ben
 
On Jun 1, 6:23 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> As Chung likes to imply

"Imply?" Dude, I may be fond of the subjunctive voice but I've been
pretty indicative about this. Either Ressiot was the most clueless
sports reporter ever to write about doping, or else there was four
months of Machiavellian negotiations going on in the background.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I
Riis out of the Tour record books
Replies
45
Views
2K
Road Cycling
[email protected]
D
S
Huffington Blog post on Riis confession
Replies
11
Views
558
Road Cycling
[email protected]
S
TiMan
Riis Confesses!
Replies
3
Views
2K
Road Cycling
Nicolai Foss
Nicolai Foss
J
Video of Riis press conference
Replies
0
Views
625
Road Cycling
Jason Spaceman
J
M
Riis admits to EPO... ESPN gets it before bike sites
Replies
26
Views
2K
Road Cycling
William Asher
W
Top Bottom Back