Riis just killed pro-cycling.....

On May 25, 4:14 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.

In 2045 they'll still be racing Milan-San Remo and the Pogio will
still play prominantly into the final results.

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.

Does that pretty much sum things up? Of is it the case that, *if* Lance had
been doping, it was somehow more insidious, more evil than the rest of them?
Perhaps because he won?

Near as I can tell, Lance didn't have a monopoly on anything but the state
of his mind and body. Those are the two things, probably the only two
things, that nobody else could have had during those 7 years he won the TdF.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA


"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
news:nLq6i.1644$J76.1617@trndny03...

"RonSonic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 May 2007 15:58:57 GMT, "B. Lafferty"

wrote:


"RicodJour" wrote in message
groups.com...
On May 27, 10:38 am, "B. Lafferty"
wrote:
"RicodJour" wrote in message

I get the fact that you have a bug up your ass about Armstrong, and
your view/opinions are seriously skewed due to said bug. You cherry
pick facts, create virtual facts, whatever it takes to support your
viewpoint.

When Lance finally croaks you'll be blubbering more than anyone
else -
your personal windmill will be getting buried along with him.
Probably time to invest in a "Plan B" so you're not caught short.


So you still believe the Lance return from the dead, lose weight,
hard
training/efficiency myth. ROTFL!

Doesn't this feel good? I'm so happy for you. Just like old times!
You can take any opportunity to twist things into being about Lance
doping. Cycling is bigger than Lance. Cycling is bigger than
doping. Well...maybe not in your world.

I'm serious. Plan B time. Don't be the grasshopper, grasshopper.

R

This is funny. You DO still believe.

And what in hell is it that you believe?

That Lance has some magic pill he won't pass on to his team or friends?

Hardly. I believe he followed the training preparation of Dr. Ferrari to
the letter.


What?

You can't just say that he doped. THe rest of them doped, so why's he
beating
them?

Because his dope and doctor (Ferrari) combined with his work ethic made
him just slightly better than guys like Ullrich?

Did he dope better? Perhaps, then why are there no successors showing up.
Is it
your theory that Lance is a super genius endocrinologist who knows things
about
doping nobody else does and he'll take it to his grave?

No successors yet. But please do consider that Lance looks very much like
Indurain's successor. Do you believe Indurain was clean, coming from a
team that came out of the old Reynolds team that had a history of drug use
dating back to Delgado and the use of a former team doctor from the old
Peugeot team--the one who pumped Thevenet up with corticoids to the point
where he pretty much fell off his bike during the 1978 Giro?

The on the record statements and findings of a WADA lab, the statements,
under oath, of the former heart and soul of Postal (Emma per mark Gorski),
statements of former teammates about drug discussions, the backdating of a
steroid prescription (for a different drug than the one found in his
system), the moto riders delivering blue ice chests to the Postal hotel in
the middle of the night, the statement of a former Postal soigneur
(Dutch--not Belgian mafia) that Spanish doctors followed Postal staying in
the same hotels but on different floors-----there's more but you may
recall it----all tends to make me rather skeptical of your super genius
endocrinologist theory. He may take it to his grave unless people who no
longer owe their jobs to him, continue to come forward to tell what they
know.

He didn't dope more because he would've been busted.

Interesting but strange statement. Oh, well.

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.

"Mike Jacoubowsky" a écrit dans le message de
news: ...
| 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.

| #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 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. To be the best
at doping would require more outside help than might be wise (as we have
seen lately!). If Lance did indeed dope, he was extraordinarily careful
about it, even from the earlier days before he was a household name.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

On Tue, 29 May 2007 22:32:52 -0700, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
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
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" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 May 2007 22:32:52 -0700, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
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, "
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."