# My Man~!



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

Never gave up, just getting better and better, and I think we can expect alot more from him. Climbed in teh TDF in 2004 better than many of the best climbers in the world 

Nice guys finsih FIRST =)


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

*heres the pic I ment to post*

WHos da man with all the ladies!


----------



## blurry (Mar 4, 2004)

he needs a dentist


----------



## cannondale_boy (May 6, 2004)

CARBON110 said:


> WHos da man with all the ladies!


Hincapie is on a doper program like Lance too... hence the result.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 2001)

cannondale_boy said:


> Hincapie is on a doper program like Lance too... hence the result.


Ok, nice troll behavior. Since it is a Sunday, I'll give you a warning and just say tone it down and stay away from posting this kind of flame bait.

If you don't , you will be banned.

francois


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

*ahhhhhhhh*

How do you spell relief? Francois!

Mucho Gracias mi amigo~!


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

*wait*

Wait, Oh Wait! 

I got it!!! Does anyone, I mean anyone know if Al Trautwig doped? I was watching VERY closely on OLN and I think the reason he isn't doing Cyclism Sundays anymore is he got busted by the NRC,UCI,and USCF sanctions and OLN wanting to avoid any repercussions swept it under the rug to avoid more publicity. I know Roll doped, no one gets that crazy without some substance abuse LOL

The proof is in the eyes. If you freeze last seasons reruns of the Cyclism and look ever so closely at Trautwigs eyes, they are bright red!! Clearly an indicator =)) 

I'm gonna go play the lotto now, I think I have a better chance of guessing which numbers will hit as opposed to which riders are on the dope...but if I follow some advice given here, all the numbers will hit!


----------



## cannondale_boy (May 6, 2004)

CARBON110 said:


> Wait, Oh Wait!
> 
> I got it!!! Does anyone, I mean anyone know if Al Trautwig doped? I was watching VERY closely on OLN and I think the reason he isn't doing Cyclism Sundays anymore is he got busted by the NRC,UCI,and USCF sanctions and OLN wanting to avoid any repercussions swept it under the rug to avoid more publicity. I know Roll doped, no one gets that crazy without some substance abuse LOL
> 
> ...


What kinds of things does Bob Roll do thats crazy? Besides that winter hiberation scetch?


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

*huh?*

The whole post above was a joke.....

Cannondale boy it is your attention to detail that I like about you! LOL

=))


----------



## cannondale_boy (May 6, 2004)

CARBON110 said:


> The whole post above was a joke.....
> 
> Cannondale boy it is your attention to detail that I like about you! LOL
> 
> =))


I'll take that as a compliment.
I have know Bob Roll to be crazy, I thought Roll as a racer you knew of some things that he did that was nuts. 
Thats why I asked.


----------



## wzq622 (Aug 3, 2004)

*i dont understand...*



cannondale_boy said:


> Hincapie is on a doper program like Lance too... hence the result.



...about the teeth and doping. someone started a thread bout armstrong or something and put up a pic of him warming up at Paris-Nice. the poster pointed out that his teeth looked weird as a result from doping.

im not insinuating anything, but can anyone explain to me how doping affects the teeth? i have noticed that Hincapie's teeth appear grossly misformed...or something weird.


are teeth really affected by doping, or am i a victim of an ongoing, inside joke that i dont know about???

thnx


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

wzq622 said:


> im not insinuating anything, but can anyone explain to me how doping affects the teeth?


HGH can cause a gap to form between your front teeth. I don't know how this relates to Hincapie, though.


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

*Ahahhah*

WTF are you talking about? Please show where you read HGH gives you a gap between your teeth LMAO

that is damn silly man! Are you just maing this stuff up as you go or what?


----------



## nwilkes (Jun 21, 2004)

endurance atheletes have been known to have dental probelms because they lose so much salt (high sweat volumes). George probably just skipped the dentist. It obviously has not hurt his game at all, have you seen his wife???????????


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

CARBON110 said:


> WTF are you talking about? Please show where you read HGH gives you a gap between your teeth LMAO


How hard do you have to work to be this clueless .

From three different countries for those people who suspect that a journalist who is not from their country might be a terrorist sympathizer, a terrorist, or--apparently worse--French:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/sportsf/stories/s920033.htm

"Warwick Hadfield: The jaw, that’s part of folklore now of the athletic world, that someone might be 30 years of age and needs bands on their teeth. Just explain exactly what happens when the jaw changes its shape.

Jeffery Zajac: Well in acromigli, patients do often present with a large face, and this is often most obvious with the jaw, and so the jaw grows bigger, grows forward, the spaces between the teeth expand, so they often have dental problems, and for an endocrinologist, these patients have a typical appearance, and even for a non-endocrinologist once you’ve seen it, you could identify it relatively easily. Again, if you were taking this for any reason and you were taking it for long enough in a high enough dose, it would have a similar effect on your jaw."

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040808/news_lz1s8steroid.html

"Unlike steroids, which target muscles, growth hormone makes a lot of things bigger – muscles, bones, internal organs, hands, feet, foreheads, jaws. In some cases, your lower jaw elongates and your teeth splay. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/front_page/3101343.stm

"Excess HGH in the body can cause acromegaly, a disease where the hands become spade-like in appearance as they get bigger. Growth of the facial bones causes the face to change shape too.

The jaw becomes larger, with spaces appearing between the teeth because of this, and the eyebrows become more prominent. The tongue enlarges and the skin becomes coarse and oily. "


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

Utah-"How hard do you have to work to be this clueless"

Utah, you don't have to be a jackass all the time 

Read this and eat my shorts =))


Kinesiology and Health Education, The University of Texas at Austin, 
Austin, TX, USA.

This case describes the physiological maturation from ages 21-28 y of 
the bicyclist who has now become the six-time consecutive 
'Grand-Champion' of the 'Tour de France', at ages 27-32 y. Maximal 
oxygen uptake (VO2max) in the trained state remained at approximately 6 
l/min, lean body weight remained at approximately 70 kg and maximal 
heart rate declined from 207 to 200 beats/min. Blood lactate threshold 
was typical of competitive cyclists in that it occurred at 76-85% 
VO2max, yet maximal blood lactate concentration was remarkably low in 
the trained state. It appears that an 8% improvement in muscular 
efficiency and thus power production when cycling at a given VO2 is the 
characteristic that improved most as this athlete matured from ages 
21-28 y. It is noteworthy that at age 25 y this champion developed 
advanced cancer , requiring surgeries and chemotherapy. During the 
months leading up to each of his 'Tour de France' victories, he reduced 
body weight and body fat by 4-7 kg (i.e.; approximately 7%). Therefore, 
over the seven year period, an improvement in muscular efficiency and 
reduced body fat contributed equally to a remarkable 18% improvement in 
his steady-state power per kg body weight when cycling at a given VO2. 
(e.g.; 5 l/min). It is hypothesized that the improved muscular 
efficiency probably reflects changes in muscle myosin type stimulated 
from years of training intensely for 3-6 h on most days.


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

CARBON110 said:


> Read this and eat my shorts


Not seeing anything here relating to HGH and teeth. Looks like a ham handed attempt to save face.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Seen that posted in a few forums now - love the way it originates from the University of Austin, Texas - must say that immediately makes me query its objectivity.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*Big George, you go man!*



CARBON110 said:


> WHos da man with all the ladies!



Big George is the man and he earned it. Good for him.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*Morbid question*



Utah CragHopper said:


> HGH can cause a gap to form between your front teeth. I don't know how this relates to Hincapie, though.


Can anyone here direct me to a published medical study, by a non biased reputable university or lab on HGH and long term usage or abuse in humans? 

If anyone cant answer with a link, or a source, save it. Most of what I have found does not have show any positive correlations to the degree that some are espousing here.


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

*I'm done*

Bianchi and Utah are insatiable about their convictions that everyone that wins is a cheater. You two should date. Let us carry on with the discussion.

I know when I see a guy lap the field in the pro 1,2 crits or at Nationals, not sure about you but my first thought isn't "damn he must be doped" 

So, back to the numbers. 

Doesn't everyone agree you CAN'T compare racers 5-10 years ago with racers today right? So no comparing TT results on different courses in different races to todays. So dispence with comparing Lance to the rest of teh TDF winners please it means nothing 

We can calculate power and speed and with a little help find out a riders weight at the time and Vo2M. Then we could compare perhaps todays leading riders numbers to some former riders but this is hard going back more than 6 or 7 years

For example, Jan Ullrich on paper is a better stronger rider than Lance. But it isn't the stronger rider that wins always. So what is LAnce doing to be able to maintain extended VO2 Max efforts so long??? How is he able to attack so hard when everyone is at the limit. What training does this? I am inclined to say it is the following-

Enormous base and aerobic economy. His logging 3+ hours a day and keeping the effort light and his HR down allows his body and muscles to develope a huge engine in addition to muscle endurance or adjusting to being out so long

Weight regimes must be added and considered an anerobic effort. So lots and lots of ME weights ( low weigh high reps like 50-60+ by 2-4 sets ) in addition to on the bike Force intervals

Then to finise it he adds things like high rpm intervals at like zone 4 slowly building up to adjusting to hard efforts with high rpms. Also adding altitude treatments

So combination of this makes his muscle process lactate and O2 very well? I left out LT intervals since most of us know how to use them. I am guessing Lances' and others must be 20-30 minutes X2-3

Comments?


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

ttug said:


> Can anyone here direct me to a published medical study, by a non biased reputable university or lab on HGH and long term usage or abuse in humans?


How would you ethically conduct such a study? 

The best information you can get would probably be from doctors who have treated a lot of body builders.


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

Bianchigirl said:


> Seen that posted in a few forums now - love the way it originates from the University of Austin, Texas - must say that immediately makes me query its objectivity.


Eddie Coyle is a professor of kinesiology and the coordinator of sports science at utexas, and we know what his reaction was when Lemond told him that LA was seeing Dr. Ferrari...


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*hard to jump time*

even using scientific data as riders of old did not have the benefit of watt meters, power taps, HR Monitors, modern nutrition and weight regimines, etc.... we do know riders did more with far less science but comparing times as you say is silly, though a fast time 20 years plus ago is IMHO far more impressive (as it was done with less modern sport technology) than one posted today. Lemond's record in the TdF TT for example or Eddy's hr mark. 
anyhow comparing LA to Jan can be done as they are contemporaries. Jan's biggst draw back is the weight disadvanatge due to his greater stature. Their race weight differences during the tour are around 15 lbs which means if they were putting out identical wattages on a given climb of say 10% or greater Jan would lose about 266 ft per mile. So Jan has to put out higher wattages just to remain in contact which means he's fighting a deck stacked against him. He would have to put a higher effort which would force him quicker into LTR or Max HR.
but this is all science, the factor that most forget is that Lance is a chemo survivor. what does this matter? survivors have new psychological definitions of pain. Just as almost every elite women distance runner gets faster after childbirth. before said life events the pain threshold is set in the mind at a certain level, after the event the bar goes up. Mid climb when most brains are saying 'ouch back off' LA's brain is saying 'this doesn't hurt, now chemo....that hurts'. there's a sub elite womens triathalete whose on the comeback from cancer presently. In an interview recently she concurred. I'm paraphrasing but she said something like 'climbs don't hurt, having bone marrow sucked from your thigh bones hurts'.


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

I know it must come as a huge surprise, but I'll disagree with carbon. Riders can be compared by calculating the power required for time trials or climbs that you have times for. The moderator has enjoined me from posting more of L.A. Confidential's analysis of LA sustained power vs. riders in the 90s and 80s, but I don't see any reason that carbon's assertion that we can only go back a few years is valid. Why can we not compare LA to Indurain, especially when we have LA times in the very same time trials that Indurain rode and can thus calculate the improvement that must have taken place?



atpjunkie said:


> the factor that most forget is that Lance is a chemo survivor. what does this matter? survivors have new psychological definitions of pain.


This is B.S. I don't buy it. Chemo does not hurt. It is uncomfortable and it sucks, but it is mostly lying in bed hoping to fall asleep. And that's the truth no matter what myth the fanboys might imagine. It is wholly different than acute suffering or pain.

Pain tolerance does not deliver more oxygen to your tissues and without more oxygen you do not produce more power and you do not go any faster. Period.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*please check women distance runners*

the statistics on their improvements post child birth point to an improvement due to increased tolerance beyond the point of statistical anomoly. I'm no fan boy as I've stated a zillion times so bury the ad hom. If you don't think the ability to tolerate pain makes a difference why was it that Eddy kept kicking a$$ after his Derny incident? Some folks are just tougher, and they use it along with their internal drive to succeed and whatever freakish gifts (Migs Lungs, LA and Eddy's V02, etc) what makes the great better than the rest (along with certain biological gifts) is the ability to keep pushing when the average folks brain says stop. I think it is what creates the great climbers, they'll just suffer more than their competition which may explain their high rate of mental problems as well.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*and Godefroot said it best*

I paraphrase. If Jan had Zabels mentality he would have been the next Merckx.


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

atpjunkie said:


> Some folks are just tougher, and they use it along with their internal drive to succeed and whatever freakish gifts (Migs Lungs, LA and Eddy's V02, etc)


LA was always a mean and determined mofo. The type of cancer treatment he underwent had nothing to do with pain.

Here's the 64000 euro question for the true believers: Given that all the top pros were using EPO in the mid and late 90s, how can you believe that after the Festina affair most pros hopped on the wagon and got off the juice when the time trial times have not sagged but improved?


----------



## svend (Jul 18, 2003)

Utah CragHopper said:


> This is B.S. I don't buy it. Chemo does not hurt. It is uncomfortable and it sucks, but it is mostly lying in bed hoping to fall asleep. And that's the truth no matter what myth the fanboys might imagine. It is wholly different than acute suffering or pain.


I had so hoped that after your embarrassment last year that you would have finally crawled under a rock and stayed there. 
Let me qualify: 1) Know 4 people who have gone through chemo, 2 survived. 2) Good friend is an Oncologist. I have limited experience, granted, but what I do know is that you are so flat out wrong that it is worse than pathetic. 'Chemo does not hurt'.....have you been there??? Know many that have??? WRONG, it can be excruciating. Un-effing-belivable, love to see you stroll into a cancer ward and pop that statement,and watch you get your a$$ handed to you on a platter. I'd even pay for the privilage. Your hatred has reached new depths, Bravo!


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

svend said:


> 'Chemo does not hurt'.....have you been there???


Yes. Four cycles, baby. Have any other questions, Mr. Wizard?

Maybe in your next post you can pray that I relapse.


----------



## svend (Jul 18, 2003)

Utah CragHopper said:


> Yes. Four cycles, baby. Have any other questions, Mr. Wizard?


As the aussies say, good on ya. So your chemo did not hurt, kudos to you and hopefully you have turned the corner however, my favorite aunt was in agony whenever her morphine waned, same with another close family friend. Thats my experience that I witnessed up close. You come across as more than pompous and your vitriol is borderline neurotic. Bottom line is until anyone tests positive or confesses, it is hearsay and not relevant. See last years discussions ad nauseum: eventually you'll be able to rejoice as eventually Lance is going to lose, maybe this year, maybe the next. Eddy said in an interview years ago that LA was capable of 7 and Eddy seems to know a thing or two. How long will you disappear this year?


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

svend said:


> Thats my experience that I witnessed up close.


Cancers like testicular cancer are not leukemia--provided you respond to treatment. I just don't buy into the fanboy argument that surviving somehow imbues your with super human will. Armstrong has always been a tough and driven competitor, even when he was a teenager.

Sorry that me not joining you and the crowd of jingoistic fanboys offends you so much.



svend said:


> How long will you disappear this year?


Hopefully six weeks starting in August.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*TT is misleading*

as there are many more mitigating factors in speed. more aerodynamic bikes, wheels, wind tunnel testing, body position, watt meters, HR Monitors with recognized science on how to improve and considering Mr lemond still holds a TdF TT record you really can't say they are 'getting faster'. the times being posted may be incremental improvements on the whole but they aren't smashing records akin to east German women swimmers of the 80's (whose records by the way have all been broken finally, people do get faster without drugs, training technique improves). A better indicator is MTN stages as in those 'dope years' of the 90's the peloton breaking up during a climb was far more rare in comparison to today and the pre EPO years. You don't see 30 plus guys at the base of the final climb anymore which would indicate a drop in phds.
congrats on surviving cancer. how 'threatened' were you (what was your chances of survival)? if you don't mind to share. from all my experience (admitted indirect, friends and family) Chemo was a b!tch, puking, pain and the feeling of molten metal in some of the injections.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*ok, lets do this fast*



Utah CragHopper said:


> How would you ethically conduct such a study?
> 
> The best information you can get would probably be from doctors who have treated a lot of body builders.


While I admire your will, and your survival through 4 cycles of chemo, I have to tell you that you have answered the million dollar question all by yourself. There are no studies that link any super super positives in performance or really a fountain of youth as it were to HGH. NONE. SQUAT. ZIP. In fact, the real deal so far is pretty much unknown. As far as the gap in the teeth thing, maybe his dad fvcks horses? Hey who knows. Its this kind of stuff that gets kids and I do mean kids killed. 

I trained in strength sports for years and HGH was a rich boys drug and really stupid to use as it gave no immediate gains. Most of the simpletons in that sport use roids or for that matter anything that allows you to "get cut" (if you build) or gain muscle mass for explosive power. That and anything that gave you a better ability to recover from massive exertions. Note, I will not provide a poharmacy list as it just so happens that we have a forum of Dr. no degrees but I want to get someone killed by misinforming them on the internet. There was also a very odd stint with Bovine Growth hormone BUT, you can always get a glimpse of overuse of that by looking at the Cuban baseball leagues, if you want that is.

I admire you, you actually used the word ethics in a proper context. This has been an enjoyable thread, I learned that you have character and that there are a few folks here who do not care who or what they do as long as it gives them the ability to shorten other peoples lives and not their own. 

They have yet to learn that respecting someone and liking them and 2 distinct things. Oh well. Keep alive and be well.


----------



## svend (Jul 18, 2003)

Utah CragHopper said:


> Sorry that me not joining you and the crowd of jingoistic fanboys offends you so much.
> Hopefully six weeks starting in August.


If calling BS on some armchair doping expert makes me a fanboy then so be it. The only offense I take is your boorish posts. Should we rehash your predictions from the last couple of years re:LA and his immenent downfall. Maybe the entire squad is doped, but until proven guilty it's all a bunch of sour grapes my some very bitter people. Conjecture and hearsay do not win the day in court. Brighten up, like I said, eventually he's going to lose, maybe this will be your lucky year. Then again, if the team stays healthy, maybe not. Might want to take that vacation starting in July.


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

*damn Utah*

Utah you couldn't get the time fo day from a clock!

Lay off before you get us all banned and this place goes back to being normal again LOL


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

Excellent points Aptj! Well said




atpjunkie said:


> as there are many more mitigating factors in speed. more aerodynamic bikes, wheels, wind tunnel testing, body position, watt meters, HR Monitors with recognized science on how to improve and considering Mr lemond still holds a TdF TT record you really can't say they are 'getting faster'. the times being posted may be incremental improvements on the whole but they aren't smashing records akin to east German women swimmers of the 80's (whose records by the way have all been broken finally, people do get faster without drugs, training technique improves). A better indicator is MTN stages as in those 'dope years' of the 90's the peloton breaking up during a climb was far more rare in comparison to today and the pre EPO years. You don't see 30 plus guys at the base of the final climb anymore which would indicate a drop in phds.
> congrats on surviving cancer. how 'threatened' were you (what was your chances of survival)? if you don't mind to share. from all my experience (admitted indirect, friends and family) Chemo was a b!tch, puking, pain and the feeling of molten metal in some of the injections.


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

atpjunkie said:


> Mr lemond still holds a TdF TT record you really can't say they are 'getting faster'. the times being posted may be incremental improvements on the whole but they aren't smashing records


We went over Lemond's TT in the other thread. My real question is why is there no big drop? Things have incrementally improved; but we know for fact that Ugramov (sp?) was walking around with a hematocrit of 60 in the spring of '94. Gotti was at 58. Riis at 56. I forget what Tonkov and the other Gewiss team members were at. That was only the beginning of teamwide doping programs. I find it too convienient that incremental training and equipment improvements would just happen to pick up the slack at the same time riders decide to abandon doping.



atpjunkie said:


> East German women swimmers of the 80's (whose records by the way have all been broken finally, people do get faster without drugs, training technique improves).


I don't follow swimming, but wasn't it just a few years back that the womens' records were all falling left and right to the Chinese, who were suspected of doping? I seem to recall it causing major concern in swimming circles.



atpjunkie said:


> A better indicator is MTN stages as in those 'dope years' of the 90's the peloton breaking up during a climb was far more rare in comparison to today and the pre EPO years. You don't see 30 plus guys at the base of the final climb anymore which would indicate a drop in phds.


I think climbing probably would be a good indicator. But instead of looking at group size it would probably be better to compare power, or power per kilogram of body weight, or estimated VO2 Max required to to climb a given grade in a given time. But unlike time trials it is much harder to get timing information.

The hematocrit limit has undoubtedly decreased the efficacy of blood doping and the average hematocrit in the Tour has gone down from what it was a few years ago, so blood doping probably has decreased. Around 2001 or 2002 I thought the tide had turned. It was things like the Manzano affair, the number of people who continue to get busted for things that supposedly can be tested for, and the large number of top riders like Frigo, Garzelli, VDB, Rumsas, Simoni, Hamilton, et cetera that make me wonder how much has really changed.



atpjunkie said:


> how 'threatened' were you (what was your chances of survival)?


60 - 70%. Cancer doesn't scare me; reading stuff like Owen Meany's situation does.


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

ttug said:


> I have to tell you that you have answered the million dollar question all by yourself. There are no studies that link any super super positives in performance or really a fountain of youth as it were to HGH. NONE. SQUAT. ZIP. In fact, the real deal so far is pretty much unknown.


The lack of formal studies has never stopped people from using stuff. In 1998 Mauro Gianetti injected himself with PFC and then went into anaphylactic shock and nearly died. In 2002 Dario Frigo was busted for attempting to buy HemAssist in Switzerland. Victor Conte's doping plans called for the injection of EPO and use of HGH and insulin for recovery. Maybe the HGH has no substantial effect, or maybe without the benefit of rigorous medical studies, athletes and their trainers have felt their way in the dark and come up with a recipe they feel works.



ttug said:


> Hey who knows. Its this kind of stuff that gets kids and I do mean kids killed.


That is one of the reasons we should have doping rules. How are you going to tell kids not to use the junk if they can flip on the TV and see Barry Bonds with his ninety million dollar contract? I don't think burying our heads in the sand is the right approach. I've said before the UCI missed a major opportunity with the Pro Tour. They could have required each team to put up 500k euros a year and used that to test all team members once a week throughout the entire year.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*everything improves incrementally*

it's why world records get broken a tiny bit at a time. especially in TT's where equipment is making huge differences. look at Merckx's hour record. Smashed by guys on 'funny bikes' but only Boardman has broken on similar equipment. The fact as stated that lemond owns 1 of the TdF records still (I know LA has the other one) that 'leaps and bounds aren't happening which would indicate doping on an endemic level)
look at track and field, most WR's are locked in the 80's (before better doping control)
and now times will slowly creep towards those high marks. The east german womens swim team showed up at the 1980 Olympics and they HUGE. The killed everybody, smashed records and gave rise to prsent doping controls. sad thing is drugs were administered to them without their knowledge (vITAMIN sHOTS) and now most are suffering and dying from the abuse by the 'machine'. I'm assuming it's the same for most East Bloc cyclists and it makes me wonder why T-Mob has a propensity for E. German Cyclists. Do I think dirty now, probably not but during their development (and I agree that LA may have been part and parcel in the 90's) most likely. Anyhow this last summer games the final 80's WR set by the east German women was finally broken and the Swimming Community breathed a huge sigh of relief. The Chinese had their little foray, set some marks, some being later removed due to failed doping and have disappeared.
If we look at Athens, the missing Greek Sprinters (their designer roid was sent to DC, most likely by the US Coach) and they disappeared. But these are roids, that build muscle and make one faster and quite different than blood boosters. You can attempt to cycle and clean before the race, while EPO if used needs to be used throughout a Tour
which makes it easier to detect. The Greek woman who won the hurdle event, smashing her PR, follow her career, most likely never another big win, a fine indicator of doping. Flo Jo smashing her PR in the 100 by .5 sec (basically to anyone in T&F a indicator, no one gets that kind of improvement clean) and her early demise again point to doping. All these elite level athletes dying of heart conditions another indicator. I'm no fan boy, I'll actually be accused as a hater anytime the true fan boys start putting him near Merckx, Hinault and Co. I just try to make my calls based on the facts, not on any personal feelings I have toward anyone.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

sorry atp but unless you have only been watching TdF for the last 6 years the contention about the peloton breaking up more on climbs is complete bollox. You get Liggett's commentary don't you? Well, Liggett and most other commentators agree that the peloton is far more compact these days on the climbs - and considerably faster. In fact it only really fragments when Armstrong launches an attack on the last 6 kms of a climb. Come on, how many times has someone posted here about how amazing Postal/Discovery's climbing is, how they can blow out the world's best climbers etc etc. When Indurain was winning, either he - and generally he alone - put the hammer down and the peloton blew apart - or a true climber attacked and the peloton exploded chasing. But these days the peloton climb at a phenomenal pace led by alleged sprinters like Hincapie (a rider who has generally ridden a full season to this point). Surely the evidence of your own eyes should completely abnegate your argument?


----------



## nwilkes (Jun 21, 2004)

Bianchigirl said:


> But these days the peloton climb at a phenomenal pace led by alleged sprinters like Hincapie (a rider who has generally ridden a full season to this point). Surely the evidence of your own eyes should completely abnegate your argument?


but at the same time Hincapie's other riding abilities have faltered. he has no sprint left (despite outgunning a virtual unknown at KbK), and doesn't he pretty much drop out of the picture after he paces postal up the lesser climbs of the tour. it isn't like he and landis were trading places last year tormenting basso, kloden and ullrich. that is what acevedo, rubiera and landis were for.
that being said he is definately doping. i mean he's on a winning team, how can he not be?


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*how*



nwilkes said:


> but at the same time Hincapie's other riding abilities have faltered. he has no sprint left (despite outgunning a virtual unknown at KbK), and doesn't he pretty much drop out of the picture after he paces postal up the lesser climbs of the tour. it isn't like he and landis were trading places last year tormenting basso, kloden and ullrich. that is what acevedo, rubiera and landis were for.
> that being said he is definately doping. i mean he's on a winning team, how can he not be?


Lesser climbs?????? Most of the climbs George paced on in the last 6 years left alot of commentators stunned that a guy of his size was there pacing, much less survivng the climb.

Also, isnt it obvious that by the point the climbing hits, that most of the sprinters disappear in totum? With the exception of Jaja because lets face it, he was a God.THEN. those final flat stages near Paris see the mysterious re appearance of......the sprinters. Wow, this is so freaky that something really bad must be going on. Its called, a multi day stage race.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*did you watch the tour last year?*

by the time Lance made his move the peloton had been whiitled down to under 10. Before that point the 'ton had been trimmed to about 30 with 8 of them being postal. So the whole team is doped as they are dropping even some GC honches. Funny out of that many riders no one gets busted. They test a whole team who OBVIOUSLY must be cheating
and not one positive in 6 years. Guys leave the team, so they must know 'all the secrets' but somehow it doesn't translate to their squad. So USPS/ Disco must come up with better and more secret doping systems every year. But if this was the case, wouldn't they leak the old dope technology to the UCI so that ex riders might get caught?

No, sorry, take the tinfoil helmet liner out. I'm not saying he didn't dope (he rode in the 90's afterall) not saying he did. I don't convict nor condemn anyone without proper evidence. Just watched a Mid to Late 90's era GT Highlights. Peloton was far more compact on the climbs. Far too many Roulers were still in the hunt.


----------



## nwilkes (Jun 21, 2004)

ttug said:


> Lesser climbs?????? Most of the climbs George paced on in the last 6 years left alot of commentators stunned that a guy of his size was there pacing, much less survivng the climb.
> 
> Also, isnt it obvious that by the point the climbing hits, that most of the sprinters disappear in totum? With the exception of Jaja because lets face it, he was a God.THEN. those final flat stages near Paris see the mysterious re appearance of......the sprinters. Wow, this is so freaky that something really bad must be going on. Its called, a multi day stage race.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I could have paced your grandmother up those hills, much less all of the GC contenders. But the guy burned himself out of every climbing stage before it ended, currently has no sprint left and rode the tour at his lightest weight ever (~163). That is not a net increase in ability, more like a lateral move that he is getting paid big money to make. He could be taking horse growth hormone for all I know, but the arguement that he is now some "stupendous climber/classics winner/sprinter extraordinare" just falls flat. If he goes up into the 170s, wins classics, time trials and climbs or frankly just gets belgian citizenship that is definately suspicous for big time doping.


----------

