Riis just killed pro-cycling.....

On Sat, 26 May 2007 19:44:23 GMT, "B. Lafferty"
wrote:


wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 25, 5:14 pm, "Crescentius Vespasianus"
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 crap 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.

I think it's time for Armstrong to come clean and admit he doped, just
like everyone else. I think Hincapie needs to come clean, as does the
rest of the Motorola/Discovery team. Former teammates like Landis,
Hamilton, and Heras all doped. It's impossible to believe that
Armstrong could have been so dominating without "help", especially
when seemingly everyone else was doping. Hincapie was a classics
rider/sprinter, and suddenly he becomes a super-domestique hanging
with LA in the lead group over the mountains and wins a mountain stage
in the TDF? It's too good to be true.

Rick H


Not true, Rick. According to Dr. Eddie Coyle (supported by our own Dr.
Coggan), it is possible with years of training to develope the efficiency
needed to climb mountains at 26 kph. Lose weight as Armstrong and George
are alleged to have done, and you can climb even though you're a classics
man. Look at Indurain. All he had to do was lose weight and suddenly his
climbing and time trialing became world class. It's all hard work, diet and
the efficiency created by years of selfless training. You believe me, don't
you? ;-)

So, what makes the difference.

Everyone can train hard and lose weight. Everyone can buy drugs. So why such
inequal results. Do you suppose the guys in the back are skimping on the drugs
or on the miles?

Ron

"RonSonic" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 May 2007 19:44:23 GMT, "B. Lafferty"

wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...
On May 25, 5:14 pm, "Crescentius Vespasianus"
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 crap 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.

I think it's time for Armstrong to come clean and admit he doped, just
like everyone else. I think Hincapie needs to come clean, as does the
rest of the Motorola/Discovery team. Former teammates like Landis,
Hamilton, and Heras all doped. It's impossible to believe that
Armstrong could have been so dominating without "help", especially
when seemingly everyone else was doping. Hincapie was a classics
rider/sprinter, and suddenly he becomes a super-domestique hanging
with LA in the lead group over the mountains and wins a mountain stage
in the TDF? It's too good to be true.

Rick H


Not true, Rick. According to Dr. Eddie Coyle (supported by our own Dr.
Coggan), it is possible with years of training to develope the efficiency
needed to climb mountains at 26 kph. Lose weight as Armstrong and George
are alleged to have done, and you can climb even though you're a classics
man. Look at Indurain. All he had to do was lose weight and suddenly his
climbing and time trialing became world class. It's all hard work, diet
and
the efficiency created by years of selfless training. You believe me,
don't
you? ;-)

So, what makes the difference.

Everyone can train hard and lose weight. Everyone can buy drugs. So why
such
inequal results. Do you suppose the guys in the back are skimping on the
drugs
or on the miles?

Ron

Unequal results?! Please. The difference between Armstrong and his main
rivals was really not that great, particularly when you look at where he
made his time-usually one or two early mountain stages in the tour.

The problem with doping is that it brings many riders to the top level when
they would be just below that tier without the boost of drugs. Boosting a
natural hematocrit in the low to mid-40s up to 50+ (even with the 50% limit
that we know was routinely exceeded), can allow a rider to stay with a
better rider. As an example, Cunego has a natural hematocrit of 53%.
Would a rider of equal size and weight with a hematocrit 10% below his be
expected to beat him in the mountains and content for a tour winners
position. I think not. Drugs may not turn draft horses into thoroughbred
stallions, but they will allow a good thoroughbred to compete with the best.

And if you look to the classics, you now have either massive pelotons long
after the sort out should have occurred, or you have a rider who is probably
a bit better prepared (perhaps willing to risk his health more than some
others) riding off into the wind, holding off chase groups working hard to
catch him--even putting time on the chasers.

So, really, the results aren't "unequal." With the seeming exception of
Armstrong and the Tour, since 1995 or 1996, when virtually all the top teams
had comparable doping programs, no one or a few teams or riders dominated as
in the pre-1990s. That's my take on the situation and it does still exist
from the testimony of present riders. Micro dosing, testosterone patches
and gel---it's all there. Perhaps the latest revelation wall change the
rider's mentality, especially given the ever increasing health dangers,
something Zabel alluded to in relations to his son and cycling.

On Sat, 26 May 2007 19:49:25 GMT, "Morphy-New Orleans"
wrote:

Actually, this could be the best thing to help cycling clean up and recover
some measure of credibility. At least I hope so. It was a beautiful sport
to watch prior to the 1990s.

You're delusional if you think doping was not widespread in the sport
before the 1990s.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

"John Forrest Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 May 2007 19:49:25 GMT, "Morphy-New Orleans"
wrote:

Actually, this could be the best thing to help cycling clean up and
recover
some measure of credibility. At least I hope so. It was a beautiful
sport
to watch prior to the 1990s.

You're delusional if you think doping was not widespread in the sport
before the 1990s.

--
JT

Doping has always been endemic to cycling, but 1990 with the advent of EPO
took doping to an entirely different performance level. But you know that.

On May 26, 1:56 pm, "B. Lafferty"
wrote:

The problem with doping is that it brings many riders to the top level when
they would be just below that tier without the boost of drugs. Boosting a
natural hematocrit in the low to mid-40s up to 50+ (even with the 50% limit
that we know was routinely exceeded), can allow a rider to stay with a
better rider. As an example, Cunego has a natural hematocrit of 53%.
Would a rider of equal size and weight with a hematocrit 10% below his be
expected to beat him in the mountains and content for a tour winners
position. I think not. Drugs may not turn draft horses into thoroughbred
stallions, but they will allow a good thoroughbred to compete with the best.



Dumbass -


You've had your head up your ass for years about this.

The most talented riders benefit from performance enhancing drugs just
as much as average riders. If you take a rider on the far end of the
bell curve and one from the middle of the same curve and shovel an
equal amount of PEDs into their bodies, the guy at the far end of the
bell curve is still going to be that much better than the average one.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

On 26 May 2007 17:49:27 -0700, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

On May 26, 1:56 pm, "B. Lafferty"
wrote:

The problem with doping is that it brings many riders to the top level when
they would be just below that tier without the boost of drugs. Boosting a
natural hematocrit in the low to mid-40s up to 50+ (even with the 50% limit
that we know was routinely exceeded), can allow a rider to stay with a
better rider. As an example, Cunego has a natural hematocrit of 53%.
Would a rider of equal size and weight with a hematocrit 10% below his be
expected to beat him in the mountains and content for a tour winners
position. I think not. Drugs may not turn draft horses into thoroughbred
stallions, but they will allow a good thoroughbred to compete with the best.



Dumbass -


You've had your head up your ass for years about this.

The most talented riders benefit from performance enhancing drugs just
as much as average riders. If you take a rider on the far end of the
bell curve and one from the middle of the same curve and shovel an
equal amount of PEDs into their bodies, the guy at the far end of the
bell curve is still going to be that much better than the average one.

Dumbass, the exception would be some freak like Cunego who wouldn't benefit from
EPO like the other guys because he's already at a higher HCT than the rules
allow. He should just take speed.


Ron

On 26 May 2007 17:49:27 -0700, Kurgan Gringioni
wrote:

The most talented riders benefit from performance enhancing drugs just
as much as average riders.

It depends on the drug. A former US Postal rider told a friend of
mine (so this is second-hand) that Tyler Hamilton benefited a lot from
the 50 hematocrit limit -- he supposedly had a low natural value and
could go up a lot and still not go over the limit. The rider who was
talking had a naturally high value and had nowhere to go with EPO or
blood doping.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 26, 1:56 pm, "B. Lafferty"
wrote:

The problem with doping is that it brings many riders to the top level
when
they would be just below that tier without the boost of drugs. Boosting
a
natural hematocrit in the low to mid-40s up to 50+ (even with the 50%
limit
that we know was routinely exceeded), can allow a rider to stay with a
better rider. As an example, Cunego has a natural hematocrit of 53%.
Would a rider of equal size and weight with a hematocrit 10% below his be
expected to beat him in the mountains and content for a tour winners
position. I think not. Drugs may not turn draft horses into
thoroughbred
stallions, but they will allow a good thoroughbred to compete with the
best.



Dumbass -


You've had your head up your ass for years about this.

The most talented riders benefit from performance enhancing drugs just
as much as average riders. If you take a rider on the far end of the
bell curve and one from the middle of the same curve and shovel an
equal amount of PEDs into their bodies, the guy at the far end of the
bell curve is still going to be that much better than the average one.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.


You truly are ignorant.

bummer

On May 26, 5:57 pm, RonSonic wrote:
On 26 May 2007 17:49:27 -0700, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:





On May 26, 1:56 pm, "B. Lafferty"
wrote:

The problem with doping is that it brings many riders to the top level when
they would be just below that tier without the boost of drugs. Boosting a
natural hematocrit in the low to mid-40s up to 50+ (even with the 50% limit
that we know was routinely exceeded), can allow a rider to stay with a
better rider. As an example, Cunego has a natural hematocrit of 53%.
Would a rider of equal size and weight with a hematocrit 10% below his be
expected to beat him in the mountains and content for a tour winners
position. I think not. Drugs may not turn draft horses into thoroughbred
stallions, but they will allow a good thoroughbred to compete with the best.

Dumbass -

You've had your head up your ass for years about this.

The most talented riders benefit from performance enhancing drugs just
as much as average riders. If you take a rider on the far end of the
bell curve and one from the middle of the same curve and shovel an
equal amount of PEDs into their bodies, the guy at the far end of the
bell curve is still going to be that much better than the average one.

Dumbass, the exception would be some freak like Cunego who wouldn't benefit from
EPO like the other guys because he's already at a higher HCT than the rules
allow.



Dumbass -


EPO isn't the only PED.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.