Body composition of Armstrong and Vinokourov

[zill]

Zill, really? You could say the same about those Chinese swimmers from a few years back.

These guys almost killed their sport, and destroyed the careers of those who wanted to ride honestly.

They are not heroes.

I'm just trying to make the point that these guys have trained full time in cycling whereas I and most people here haven't. In this way, I respect them.

I'm not savvy enough to comment on professional cycling but it definitely is bad that they cheated. However, they are trying to make a living and people can go to desperate measures doing that (just look at the situations in Africa and the Middle East or even the economic crisis in the developed countries of recent years). It shows that tough, advanced and uncorrupt policing must occur in any field for it to advance fairly.

[RonK]

Zill, really? You could say the same about those Chinese swimmers from a few years back.

These guys almost killed their sport, and destroyed the careers of those who wanted to ride honestly.

They are not heroes.

I'm just trying to make the point that these guys have trained full time in cycling whereas I and most people here haven't. In this way, I respect them.

I'm not savvy enough to comment on professional cycling but it definitely is bad that they cheated. However, they are trying to make a living and people can go to desperate measures doing that (just look at the situations in Africa and the Middle East or even the economic crisis in the developed countries of recent years).

Trying to make a living? Hardly, these guys stood to make millions by cheating. There cannot be any comparsion with those struggling just to survive.

Fortunately the US Government's lawsuit against Armstrong has been cleared to proceed, and if successful Armstrong may be paying almost $100M back. Yes $100M, that is the kind of money he got from US Postal by cheating, so don't give us this bs that he was just trying to make a living.

[zill]

Zill, really? You could say the same about those Chinese swimmers from a few years back.

These guys almost killed their sport, and destroyed the careers of those who wanted to ride honestly.

They are not heroes.

I'm just trying to make the point that these guys have trained full time in cycling whereas I and most people here haven't. In this way, I respect them.

I'm not savvy enough to comment on professional cycling but it definitely is bad that they cheated. However, they are trying to make a living and people can go to desperate measures doing that (just look at the situations in Africa and the Middle East or even the economic crisis in the developed countries of recent years).

Trying to make a living? Hardly, these guys stood to make millions by cheating. There cannot be any comparsion with those struggling just to survive.

Fortunately the US Government's lawsuit against Armstrong has been cleared to proceed, and if successful Armstrong may be paying almost $100M back. Yes $100M, that is the kind of money he got from US Postal by cheating, so don't give us this bs that he was just trying to make a living.

But his living is lavish living so he has much higher standards (of living). Some people are clearly more greedy than others which is very unfortunate in some ways.

[dalai47]

I'm just trying to make the point that these guys have trained full time in cycling whereas I and most people here haven't. In this way, I respect them.

Who by cheating denied equally gifted athletes who chose not to dope a right to earn a decent living.

[clackers]

No idea if page numbers, but he talks about back to back 6hr days & collapsing into bed and also talks about coming home from rides, not eating, popping a sleeping tablet and waking up the next day.

Maybe it's not in the book and he said it elsewhere, or in an interview?

Ok. So you haven't read it.

EPO increases the number of red blood cells. It was originally given to cancer patients with a low count, which may have been Armstrong's first encounter with the drug.

You described it as a magic wand.

[dalai47]

I'm just trying to make the point that these guys have trained full time in cycling whereas I and most people here haven't. In this way, I respect them.

ABC1 tonight at 8:32 PM may change that opinion. Stop at nothing: the Lance Armstrong Story

"This is an intimate but explosive story about the man behind the greatest fraud in sporting history. Revealing new details about the scandal - with insights from the former friends whose lives and careers he destroyed. "

[zill]

I'm just trying to make the point that these guys have trained full time in cycling whereas I and most people here haven't. In this way, I respect them.

ABC1 tonight at 8:32 PM may change that opinion. Stop at nothing: the Lance Armstrong Story

"This is an intimate but explosive story about the man behind the greatest fraud in sporting history. Revealing new details about the scandal - with insights from the former friends whose lives and careers he destroyed. "

It's clear that LA was a bad guy and I knew this before watching this documentary. In a perfect world, no one would dope. The point I was making is if an A grade rider (who got into A grade without doping) started to dope then I would still look up to him not because he doped and is now pro level but because he got into A grade in the first place and without doping. However, if someone should be in C grade but doped and got into A grade then I wouldn't look up to him. Or if I was pro level but doing mediocre and one of my team mates doped and is now on the podium then I wouldn't look up to him either. So I accept that showtime happens in this world but try to judge people by the amount of honest work that they have produced. Often it is hard to see how much of that work was honest which means that I have to be very careful in judging a cyclist's results.

Probably the most important thing is to be true and honest to yourself.

For pro cyclists, they just have to accept the profession they are in and live with it. One could always choose another career if they see or sense things they didn't like or see no future/career progression in their field .

[dalai47]

For pro cyclists, they just have to accept the profession they are in and live with it. One could always choose another career if they see or sense things they didn't like or see no future/career progression in their field .

I do find your comments odd,contradictory and very niave! One one hand you idolise anyone who has made the sacrifices to become a good rider, but then on the other hand when they have made the highest ranks; if faced with being potentially coerced into taking PEDs they should just lump it as being part of their chosen sport or choose another career??!!

Many guys who follow that path do so at the expense of their education (not all thankfully - some teams and organisations such as the VIS have further education as mandatory), so after dedicating years to hopefully race pro one day you are saying they should just walk away and choose another career! What career would that be without a degree or further education?

[donncha]

Ok. So you haven't read it.

EPO increases the number of red blood cells. It was originally given to cancer patients with a low count, which may have been Armstrong's first encounter with the drug.

You described it as a magic wand.

No, I didn't describe it as a magic wand. I said it made it much easier to get super-ripped because it makes it easier to recover from training.

As for his book, yes, I have read it. It's sitting on my bookshelf behind me. I'm not going to re-read it to try and nail down a page number for you. I've also read many other interviews with Hamilton, which is why I said that maybe the exact reference to EPO wasn't in the book. However, the notion of training all day, eating almost nothing, taking a sleeping tablet and getting up to do it again the next day IS in the book. Taking EPO & the 'red eggs' allow you to do that without destroying yourself, and therefore, it helps massively in getting super lean.

I also know someone who participated in an EPO testing study who said the same thing. The biggest thing he noticed was that he could smash himself one day and then go out and do it again the next day, whereas normally he'd need an easier day to recover.

And for the record, Armstrong's first encounter with EPO was as a cyclist, BEFORE he was diagnosed with cancer.

[donncha]

The point I was making is if an A grade rider (who got into A grade without doping) started to dope then I would still look up to him not because he doped and is now pro level but because he got into A grade in the first place and without doping. However, if someone should be in C grade but doped and got into A grade then I wouldn't look up to him. Or if I was pro level but doing mediocre and one of my team mates doped and is now on the podium then I wouldn't look up to him either.

In your scenarios you described above, I'd recognise the work they'd done before they started to dope, but I wouldn't look up to any of them. Looking up to someone implies admiration. I can acknowledge that someone is a better cyclist/athlete/whatever than me without having to also admire them.

For pro cyclists, they just have to accept the profession they are in and live with it. One could always choose another career if they see or sense things they didn't like or see no future/career progression in their field .

Sorry Zill, but that attitude is why pro cycling is so messed up. Pro cyclists, or any pro athletes, shouldn't be forced to dope to be competitive. That was the state of play from roughly 1993 until recently. Thankfully that attitude has changed and they don't have to "just live with it" anymore.

[RonK]

It's clear that LA was a bad guy and I knew this before watching this documentary. In a perfect world, no one would dope. The point I was making is if an A grade rider (who got into A grade without doping) started to dope then I would still look up to him not because he doped and is now pro level but because he got into A grade in the first place and without doping.

But you cannot make the assumption that Armstrong didn't dope before he became a pro, you simply don't know when he first started.

Indeed there have been suggestions that his testicular cancer could well have been caused by long-term doping.

[Mulger bill]

Can't cite this sorry...
IIRC, scientific testing not long before Pharmstrongs last losing tilt at the French ride had his body composition at ~90% ego, 5% juice and the last 5% as anal sphincter...

[ColinOldnCranky]

I'm just trying to make the point that these guys have trained full time in cycling whereas I and most people here haven't. In this way, I respect them.

Who by cheating denied equally gifted athletes who chose not to dope a right to earn a decent living.

And, in the case of Armstrong, vengefully went after some of them even after they were out of the sport.

I get the sense that you were either not around at the time it all came to a head or were not interested at the time. Actions and intrigue were way worse than business as usual or maintining a status quo just to be competitive.

[zill]

In your scenarios you described above, I'd recognise the work they'd done before they started to dope, but I wouldn't look up to any of them. Looking up to someone implies admiration. I can acknowledge that someone is a better cyclist/athlete/whatever than me without having to also admire them.

Don't know about you but I like to race anyone that I meet while training or commuting. If someone clearly is faster than me then I kind of admire them (I'm assuming they are not on dope though and many people can beat me without doping).

Sorry Zill, but that attitude is why pro cycling is so messed up. Pro cyclists, or any pro athletes, shouldn't be forced to dope to be competitive. That was the state of play from roughly 1993 until recently. Thankfully that attitude has changed and they don't have to "just live with it" anymore.

But they thing is in that doping era, how many young cyclists can stand up and confidently speak their voice? The whole establishment was corrupted back then and careers were on the line. Now, thankfully the authorities are were aware and hard line on the issue. Hence the people at the bottom, the young cyclists are better off.

[zill]

For pro cyclists, they just have to accept the profession they are in and live with it. One could always choose another career if they see or sense things they didn't like or see no future/career progression in their field .

I do find your comments odd,contradictory and very niave! One one hand you idolise anyone who has made the sacrifices to become a good rider, but then on the other hand when they have made the highest ranks; if faced with being potentially coerced into taking PEDs they should just lump it as being part of their chosen sport or choose another career??!!

Many guys who follow that path do so at the expense of their education (not all thankfully - some teams and organisations such as the VIS have further education as mandatory), so after dedicating years to hopefully race pro one day you are saying they should just walk away and choose another career! What career would that be without a degree or further education?

At the time (the doping era), doping was part of the package so to speak and if a young cyclist was good enough to get to that level and realizes the need to dope then they could choose to "cut their loses early" so to speak and get out when they are not too old for a career change. But for most, they probably played along and accepted it. They wouldn't have gained much by speaking out though as it probably meant they would have no future in cycling ever again and for most of those riders, having spent so much time in cycling, they need it in some shape or form to make a living. Thankfully now, the attitude has changed.

In the end it took Floyd to really expose the doping culture and pretty much end it. I think he exposed it firstly because he had a lot to gain from doing so (after losing a lot due to doping and effectively ended his career in cycling - he had nothing to lose) and also the fact that people would listen to him because he was famous at the time. A newcomer wouldn't be nearly as successful speaking out on doping and he has a better to chance making a living doping then speaking out (in that era) as he would be considered an outsider.

[GAV!N]

I'm just trying to make the point that these guys have trained full time in cycling whereas I and most people here haven't. In this way, I respect them.

ABC1 tonight at 8:32 PM may change that opinion. Stop at nothing: the Lance Armstrong Story

"This is an intimate but explosive story about the man behind the greatest fraud in sporting history. Revealing new details about the scandal - with insights from the former friends whose lives and careers he destroyed. "

It's clear that LA was a bad guy and I knew this before watching this documentary. In a perfect world, no one would dope. The point I was making is if an A grade rider (who got into A grade without doping) started to dope then I would still look up to him not because he doped and is now pro level but because he got into A grade in the first place and without doping. However, if someone should be in C grade but doped and got into A grade then I wouldn't look up to him. Or if I was pro level but doing mediocre and one of my team mates doped and is now on the podium then I wouldn't look up to him either. So I accept that showtime happens in this world but try to judge people by the amount of honest work that they have produced. Often it is hard to see how much of that work was honest which means that I have to be very careful in judging a cyclist's results.

But you just said you'd look up to someone if they got to A grade without doping. There's a good chance your 'team mate' didn't dope to get to A grade, so wouldn't you respect him for that? But now you wouldn't because he's gone from your level, to a level above you? Seriously, what is it? Are you saying it's ok for someone to dope, and you'd look up to them and respect them, as long as they aren't on the same level as you and are gaining an advantage from it???

[zill]

But you just said you'd look up to someone if they got to A grade without doping. There's a good chance your 'team mate' didn't dope to get to A grade, so wouldn't you respect him for that? But now you wouldn't because he's gone from your level, to a level above you? Seriously, what is it? Are you saying it's ok for someone to dope, and you'd look up to them and respect them, as long as they aren't on the same level as you and are gaining an advantage from it???

You didn't seem to understand what I was saying. Basically, i'm just saying anyone'e efforts without any doping is regarded as good effort. Effort that comes inconjunction with doping is bad effort.

I'll give another example, if a beginning cyclist won D grade after training a period of time without doping then I respect that (although might not admire because I can see myself winning D grade). However, if immediately after that he doped and won C grade then I won't respect that.

[clackers]

.

In the end it took Floyd to really expose the doping culture and pretty much end it.

No one's ended it!

Michael Ashenden has said the current practice of microdoping EPO can't be detected if the athletes do it overnight.

[zill]

.

In the end it took Floyd to really expose the doping culture and pretty much end it.

No one's ended it!

Michael Ashenden has said the current practice of microdoping EPO can't be detected if the athletes do it overnight.

I'm not saying it has ended, just saying what it took to really expose Armstrong's doping to the public.

You'd think Sky's dominance at last year's (and 2012) tour is suspicious at some level though I certainly am not an insider.

[clackers]

I'm not saying it has ended, just saying what it took to really expose Armstrong's doping to the public.

You'd think Sky's dominance at last year's (and 2012) tour is suspicious at some level though I certainly am not an insider.

Yes, I think you're probably right, Zill.