![]() |
View
New Forum Topics Today's Forum Topics Set as homepage |
|
|||||||
Welcome to CyclingForums.com You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread. By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
#61 | |
|
Registered User
|
Quote:
I've never doubted that cycling has a pernicious drug problem. I took it very personally when two of my favorite cyclists turned out to be cheats this year, Hamilton and Millar. EPO is an obvious problem, and the extent of blood doping might barely be known. And it's clear that the EPO problem extends much farther than just the influence of Italian doctors. A woman's ironman champ and a cyclocross rider both tested positive this year. As did plenty of lights far less bright than Hamilton and Millar. As I've said repeatedly, I don't know if Lance dopes. No one can know. We don't live next to him or sleep next to him. We don't ride for his team and we don't test his blood. But I do think it is very silly to think that Lance took some sort of superjuice that transformed him from a "mediocre" classic rider to a Tour champion. I just don't believe such a drug or cocktail of drugs can be reasonably expected to exist. 100s have cyclists have probably taken EPO, and the attendant hemocrit levels have fluctuated, performances have gone up and down, and irregularities have been noted. With LA, we're talking about seven years of consistent grand tour performance with no positives, no weird hemocrit levels, and no direct evidence of doping. If LA takes a superjuice that makes him a Tour winner when he should be a poor man's Stuart O'Grady, and has been for seven years, and no one has copied it or found out, well then he and Johan are far too smart to just be cycling champions. Some one should make them the head of an international spy ring. I don't buy it. If the Italian doctors are so good, how come one of them hasn't turned Paola Bettini into Eddy Merckx?
__________________
Harry |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#62 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 997
|
I think the thread was lost.
The point with regards to Riis is that he dominated the Tour in 96, riding up Hautacam in the friggin big chain ring! Dude, I've ridden up that thing and it is steep!!! Here is the big point, the Tour instituted the 50% Hematocrit rule for the 97 Tour, and then Riis showed up and did nothing. Ullrich on the other hand rode up mountains, marking Virenque, not even struggling. Of course, Virenque and Pascal Herve and all the other Festina dopers were yet to be caught, but were doped to the gills with hematocrits probably at 49.9%. Same with Pantani. SO in retrospect, no, Riis did not fail a test in terms of a positive, but they had no tests for EPO then , just a 50% rule. And his nickname was Mr 60%, but I dont know where the origin of that is. Ullrich was incredible in 1997, which was why Lance said he would stick to one day races as he was coming back, because it was clear that Ullrich and Lance said so, would dominate. This was before Lance got on the bike 15 lbs lighter, with Bruyneel and the rest is history. So, by comparison, Lance has always had results, in contrast to Riis who came from nowhere, not even a good one day racer. So all the arguments you detractors of Armstrong use should be applied to Riis like multiplied by a hundred fold. Compare palmares!!! Riis from Cycling Hall of Fame.com: Riis BjarneDEN 1995 Tour de France 3rd place 1996 Tour de France 1st place 1997 Amstel Gold 1st place The guy won almost nothing. Virtually unheard of for a Tour winner, oh yeah, besides a brief run of dopers like Pantani and Zulle-guys who won nothing except Grand Tours. Weird huh? Ullrich won the worlds and the Olympics, Lemond won the worlds and a bunch of other stuff, Indurain won San Sebastian and podiumed the worlds a number of times. Not Riis!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
#63 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 121
|
[QUOTE=tcklyde]I've never doubted that cycling has a pernicious drug problem. I took it very personally when two of my favorite cyclists turned out to be cheats this year, Hamilton and Millar. EPO is an obvious problem, and the extent of blood doping might barely be known. And it's clear that the EPO problem extends much farther than just the influence of Italian doctors. A woman's ironman champ and a cyclocross rider both tested positive this year. As did plenty of lights far less bright than Hamilton and Millar.
As I've said repeatedly, I don't know if Lance dopes. No one can know. We don't live next to him or sleep next to him. We don't ride for his team and we don't test his blood. But I do think it is very silly to think that Lance took some sort of superjuice that transformed him from a "mediocre" classic rider to a Tour champion. I just don't believe such a drug or cocktail of drugs can be reasonably expected to exist. 100s have cyclists have probably taken EPO, and the attendant hemocrit levels have fluctuated, performances have gone up and down, and irregularities have been noted. With LA, we're talking about seven years of consistent grand tour performance with no positives, no weird hemocrit levels, and no direct evidence of doping. If LA takes a superjuice that makes him a Tour winner when he should be a poor man's Stuart O'Grady, and has been for seven years, and no one has copied it or found out, well then he and Johan are far too smart to just be cycling champions. Some one should make them the head of an international spy ring. I don't buy it. If the Italian doctors are so good, how come one of them hasn't turned Paola Bettini into Eddy Merckx?[/QUOTE] You have made some very good points. Like conspiracy theories, the loch ness monster, bigfoot we all seem to want to believe something mysterious is out there. I have always fiound it quite interesting that people claim Armstrong was mediocre and made great by drugs. So why haven't others benefited from this? Medical and biological research does not occur in a vacuum as one see's in movies and in novels. There are no isolated labs comming up with earth shattering breakthroughs. The breakthroughs touted in the press are actually small advancements that that progress from other works done by scores of researchers from multiple institutions. If such a cocktail existed it would taken an army of researchers, clinical trials to have developed it. Try keeping that under wraps. This along with the proliferation of news media desperate for a news breakthrough, it is amazing that all that can be found that implicates Armstrong as doping his way to wins is a few people saying what amounts to being-" I gave him a mysterious package of pills etc. etc." Is he are has he ever used performance enhancing drugs? I don't know. |
|
|
|
|
|
#65 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,662
|
As a bit of an aside, some guys were riding in Adelaide recently wearing tops that had "Aranesp" written on as a sponsor. This was a bit of a joke by the guys wearing the tops. In case you don't know, aranesp is the trade name for darbopoietin, a new version of Epo.
Several pros from some MAJOR European teams rode past them, on a slow ride the day before the start of Tour Down Under. One pro noticed the aranesp, them called all the other pros to have a look so that they could all have a laugh at this. Clearly this proves nothing but if you ask doctors what aranesp is, I would guess between 25 & 50% would know. (The vast majority would know darbopoietin but not many would recognise the trade name aranesp). It seems a little concerning to me that every single one of these pros knew exactly what it is... |
|
|
|
|
|
#67 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 28
|
Flyer, you know your sh????t. I love reading about this doping crap, I have a morbid curiosity. IMO it's better than any reality show. Now, forgetting about LA for a second, what do you think about Merckx Sr, the Grandaddy of A$$whippings? They had steroids, blood transfusions, and amphetamines back then, but can that explain his total dominance? He was kicked out of the Giro IIRC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#69 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 5
|
Quote:
Really...? 60% you say? and what credible source do you have? I don't know where you get this BS info from.... maybe you would like us to believe that you were one of the Telekom doctors at the '96 tour, but i doubt it. FYI, whatever you hear about rider's hematocrits during the season, none of it is ever made public knowledge, much less published for uneducated morons like you who could then start all kinds of stories. If you knew anything, you'd know that the UCI didn't begin to do routine hematocrit tests until 1997. So if he really was 60%, then the only people that would have known for sure would have been Mr Riis, and his team doctors. So whatever you are talking about, I've also heard. So have lots of people. But that's only rumors. I've heard lots of things....about lots of people... but that means nothing. You can't discredit someone for something, based on rumor alone. Riis was a late bloomer. He spent most of his career in the service of other riders, riding for such teams as Ariostea and Gewiss. His performances never indicated his status as a contender for the Grand Tours, until he came out of the woodwork in 1995. To say he came out of nowhere is unfair and unjust. Shame on you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#70 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 589
|
Quote:
Telekom systematically doped through the 90s - I have an email from a T-Mobile mechanic that states names, products etc etc. And, no, I would have no intention of publishing it in a public forum. But all this stuff that is runour? It's fact |
|
|
|
|