[OAR]

Youre welcome.....

HAHA........... 7........................

nothing of note in that.

so if you read body english, you would have a hard time discerning if Virenque was lying?

Just on the denial, on the Jim Rome show, Armstrong also put on an unctuous exterior. Asked if he ever took doping products, he makes the default vociferous denial, then tries to be more intimate with the interview and question, and say, actually, technically, I did, when being treated for Cancer. This, apparrently more open and transparent technique, is to garner credibility.

If anything, Floyd's hiccup mimicks this technique, yet I think it was part naivete and part extemporising without a wrote choreographed press release.

I can not help this but have to do it.

you get my manual buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr... (if you listen to Rome then you will understand) also I have to add this note directed to Christ...go and have lunch with the monkey and set up the next tour stop.

[cycling newbee]

also I have to add this note directed to Christ...go and have lunch with the monkey and set up the next tour stop.

Is Christ on the forum now ?

[OAR]

oncearunner is an evangilest, one of my followers,

oncerunner shall again run once more, with my consent,

thou shalt jog on water

thanks CN and Chris t

haha...

[GuitarWizard]

Alright...

Since I first heard about the whole doping thing when it first broke out, I did not wish to place any judgement on anyone until the facts all came out and after everything was all said and done. But, the longer this goes on and such, I'll at least shed my opinions and my take on things, not that they really matter much in the grand scheme of things.

I personally don't believe Floyd doped. I FULLY believe that it runs rampant in the peloton, but like Lance, I don't believe Floyd took part in it (and I'm not just saying that because Floyd frequents these boards). It really comes down to the type of person/athelete someone is. And I keep bringing up Lance in a few of the posts I've made, because as much as their personalities may diiffer, their drive to be the best (I believe) is fairly similar.....which is what separates "good atheletes" and "great atheletes" from "champions".

The argument could then be made that since they have such a drive for winning and being the best, that they'll go to any and all lengths to secure their victories. Yes and no. There is no easy answer, because everyone and their mindsets are different....but when you take an athlete who is that focused and talented (like Lance and Floyd), they don't need to dope. The guys who maybe don't train as hard, or who are not as naturally gifted as an athlete sometimes need to, in order to keep up or post a result here and there. For example, before cancer, Lance was an animal in the Classics and on flatter courses. He had a drive and a hunger to rip the field apart, and trained his ass off....combine that with his natural ability, and you have a recipie for success; provided you race smart, which in the beginning, he didn't. Then he got cancer, lost 15 or so pounds (which is huge), and regained his form and destroyed everyone in the mountains. Floyd, I believe, posted better numbers than Lance in physiological testing (perhaps Floyd can back that up), and he's been getting faster as the years progress. Speed and maintaining that speed doesn't come overnight, as we all know.

So....what does all this have to do with Floyd and athletes like him? Winning by cheating is like winning by default - and no champion wants to win that way. They want to earn it. It's like climbing Mt. McKinley, most every mountaineers' dream (Everest is overrated). Sure, they can not do the climb, read a book and really study the whole mountain and some experiences that people have had, and then go brag to everyone and their brother that they've climbed it.....but to a REAL climber, that just won't do. They have to do it, conquer it, and experience it.

So...that's my take on things.

[smug]

if you take the time to get to know the european riders, many of them have the drive to win and the ability as well.

[Bjørn P.Dal]

According to coyles study (http://www.edb.utexa...ticle%20JAP.pdf), armstrongs weight was:

Nov1992 Jan1993 Sept1993 Aug1997 Nov1999
Preseason Preseason Racing Reduced Preseason
---78.9-----76.5-----75.1-----79.5-----79.7 -kg

Armstrong testified in the SCA suit that his tour winning weight was 74 kg, which is in line with coyles data. Please do not cite weight loss as the reason for him suddenly climbing with the best.

Smug: only americans have the mindset to win grand tours without dope and you know it.

This post has been edited by Bjørn P.Dal: 04 November 2006 - 02:26 PM

[GuitarWizard]

if you take the time to get to know the european riders, many of them have the drive to win and the ability as well.

Ok.....then perhaps one of them will win the Tour next year. Basso looked pretty superhuman at the Giro this year, maybe he'll be wearing yellow into Paris in 2007.

Armstrong testified in the SCA suit that his tour winning weight was 74 kg, which is in line with coyles data. Please do not cite weight loss as the reason for him suddenly climbing with the best.

Smug: only americans have the mindset to win grand tours without dope and you know it.

In regards to weight loss, looking at some earlier pics of a "chubbier" Lance versus later in his career (post-cancer), he is noticably thinner. If you don't think weight makes a difference with climbing, go slap on 15 pounds of weight onto your bike and then go climb a mountain. If you're already among the top cyclists of the world, and THEN lose the weight, it will be a big advantage.

I know that doping runs rampant in the ranks, I've had confirmation from a trusted source that it does, and will continue to do so. However, for the reading comprehension-challenged, I merely posted up my opinion on a small faction of it, which may differ greatly from the actual facts of what may go on behind the scenes. The fact is, we don't know the actual facts about everything (or even most things, unless one is personally involved), and sitting here on an internet mesage board, most of us can only second guess.

I realize that my "opinion" may not be popular amongst the masses, and honestly, that really doesn't concern me very much.

[floridacyclist]

Basso looked pretty superhuman at the Giro this year ...

After watching Basso and Gutierrez ride away from him and the rest of the top GC favorites and climbers on the queen stage like they were standing still, I believe Simoni used a different descriptive -- "extraterrestrial". Wink, wink, nod, nod.

[Bjørn P.Dal]

In regards to weight loss, looking at some earlier pics of a "chubbier" Lance versus later in his career (post-cancer), he is noticably thinner. If you don't think weight makes a difference with climbing, go slap on 15 pounds of weight onto your bike and then go climb a mountain. If you're already among the top cyclists of the world, and THEN lose the weight, it will be a big advantage.

I could do that.. but I dont believe his race weight pre and post cancer varied by anything like 15 pounds, in fact coyles numbers showed they were ~1 kg when measured against armstrongs own testified tour winning weight. Using pictures pre and post to speculate on weight wont wash. For intance I'm sure there is a lot of pictures of the new armstrong 'looking' heavier than he does on this old one: http://grahamwatson.com/gw/imagedocs.nsf/P...st/05la1-027000

This post has been edited by Bjørn P.Dal: 04 November 2006 - 05:09 PM

[jr.]

Greg Lemond mentioned about himself in one of his Samuel Abt/NYT interviews that 1 kilogram of upper arm weight (per arm) which he was starting the season with from cross country skiing over the winter would have to come off because it would make a big difference on the climbs.

In articles published about Armstrong pre cancer, the word from many was that he was too big but could transition to gt from a more classics rider if he would lose the upper body weight. Again, pre cancer, pre ever winning a tour comments on Armstrong. After cancer the consensus was he had taken off some upper body weight. But mostly the pre/post cancer comments that seemed to show the most difference were about his ability to keep focus and discipline himself, to work at what he had to do to win over three weeks instead of one long hard day. And maybe changing focus from riding a whole season to just one race. If you only have to peak once, save your body the stress of the travel, the racing to win in many races, etc, what kind of advantage does that give you over someone who has to ride a whole season with multiple goals to keep his job?

None of which says anything about doping, he could have doped his whole career. Given that he began riding professionally (road racing in Europe) in the nineties that would sound par for the peloton. But maybe he didn't dope, no one has been able to provide direct evidence of it yet. Maybe he got smarter about doping and maybe he got smarter about training. Plus the natural progression in learning and strength, no one seems to expect that a 23 year old would routinely outride a 29 year old of similar skills over a three week race. Ulle may have been an exception, but most other riders don't peak in their early 20's.

But to come back around to Floyd, why wouldn't someone who is honest, a little sardonic with a world view a few degrees off center, give the I'll say no answer. He might not have been in the peloton in 1998, but had seen Virenque play out, all the stuff about Armstrong, the Cofidis stuff, Miller, Tyler Hamilton. He knew that it didn't matter what he said. All of the fans and the media had heard it all, he knew that a signficant number wouldn't believe him. He knew he would sound like so many people who were later proven guilty who denied all along. He knew that some that hadn't been proven guilty, who had denied all along still weren't believed. Maybe I would have chosen "for what its worth (and we all know that's nothing), I'll say no." I think that's all he meant.

[OAR]

I could do that.. but I dont believe his race weight pre and post cancer varied by anything like 15 pounds, in fact coyles numbers showed they were ~1 kg when measured against armstrongs own testified tour winning weight. Using pictures pre and post to speculate on weight wont wash. For intance I'm sure there is a lot of pictures of the new armstrong 'looking' heavier than he does on this old one: http://grahamwatson.com/gw/imagedocs.nsf/P...st/05la1-027000

Snap! I did not realize Lance Armstrong was directly involved with the “Floyd Landis Case” – and better yet had no Idea that he made the statement “I’ll say no” he has done a lot of things but LA has stepped up and now is doing athletic impersonations. I wonder what type of career he will have?

[Thomas A. Fine]

After watching Basso and Gutierrez ride away from him and the rest of the top GC favorites and climbers on the queen stage like they were standing still, I believe Simoni used a different descriptive -- "extraterrestrial". Wink, wink, nod, nod.

Yet another instance of "Everyone Faster Than Me Is Doping". Whine whine... well he is the biggest crybaby in the peloton, so what do you expect. How big does your ego have to be to believe it is impossible for someone else to be better than you?

I swear I'm going to get that printed on a jersey. Or maybe just "EFTMID".

tom

[Bjørn P.Dal]

EFTMWHTBSAAGIMID - "Everyone Faster Than Me Who Have Their Blood Stored At A Gynecologist In Madrid Is Doping". Bang on that time Gibo.

[GuitarWizard]

In articles published about Armstrong pre cancer, the word from many was that he was too big but could transition to gt from a more classics rider if he would lose the upper body weight. Again, pre cancer, pre ever winning a tour comments on Armstrong. After cancer the consensus was he had taken off some upper body weight. But mostly the pre/post cancer comments that seemed to show the most difference were about his ability to keep focus and discipline himself, to work at what he had to do to win over three weeks instead of one long hard day. And maybe changing focus from riding a whole season to just one race. If you only have to peak once, save your body the stress of the travel, the racing to win in many races, etc, what kind of advantage does that give you over someone who has to ride a whole season with multiple goals to keep his job?

None of which says anything about doping, he could have doped his whole career. Given that he began riding professionally (road racing in Europe) in the nineties that would sound par for the peloton. But maybe he didn't dope, no one has been able to provide direct evidence of it yet. Maybe he got smarter about doping and maybe he got smarter about training. Plus the natural progression in learning and strength, no one seems to expect that a 23 year old would routinely outride a 29 year old of similar skills over a three week race. Ulle may have been an exception, but most other riders don't peak in their early 20's.

Bingo. Lance did lose both muscle mass and (as far as I know) bone density due to the cancer, and while off-season and peak fitness weight differs, he was leaner and lighter post cancer. He also gained MUCH, MUCH more focus in his training and his approach to racing as a whole. And, as you stated, racers do not peak in their early 20's. Generally speaking, endurance athletes hit their peak in their early 30's actually. Lances' book "It's Not About the Bike" is a great insight and introspective into what he went through, and how he changed.

At any rate, as everyone else is, I'm eagerly awaiting the outcome to Floyds' case. I really hope to see him ride next year, as a TdF with Landis, Vino, and Basso would be....IMHO....a pretty exciting Tour to watch.

This post has been edited by GuitarWizard: 06 November 2006 - 10:18 PM