# Heras, Hamilton and numerous allegations. Makes you think, doesn't it?



## gizzard (Oct 5, 2005)

With the news that Roberto Heras had tested 'not negative' to EPO use after stage 20 of this year’s Vuelta, something occurred to me: Both Heras and Hamilton came from US Postal, a team that came under intense media scrutiny and speculation regarding drug use before it was wound up and re-launched under the Discovery moniker. It seems to me that with all the doping allegations made by former riders, soigneurs, doctors etc, that there must be some substance to it all. Where there’s smoke there’s fire, right?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

gizzard said:


> With the news that Roberto Heras had tested 'not negative' to EPO use after stage 20 of this year’s Vuelta, something occurred to me: Both Heras and Hamilton came from US Postal, a team that came under intense media scrutiny and speculation regarding drug use before it was wound up and re-launched under the Discovery moniker. It seems to me that with all the doping allegations made by former riders, soigneurs, doctors etc, that there must be some substance to it all. Where there’s smoke there’s fire, right?


How many non-Postal/Discovery riders tested non-negative this year? How does the ratio of former Postal/Discovry riders testing positive relative to the total number of positives compare to the ratio of current or former Postal/Discovery riders to the overall ProTour population? Without those numbers, how can we know if Postal/Discovery riders are testing positive at a higher or lower rate then the total population?


----------



## Zampano (Aug 7, 2005)

I stop thinking long ago. "I'm in a happy place".


----------



## Henry Chinaski (Feb 3, 2004)

They're all dopers. Pro cycling is a great spectacle and soap opera but it's kind of ruined as an actual legitimate sport as far as I'm concerned. No different from most pro "sports" these days...


----------



## gizzard (Oct 5, 2005)

asgelle said:


> How many non-Postal/Discovery riders tested non-negative this year? How does the ratio of former Postal/Discovry riders testing positive relative to the total number of positives compare to the ratio of current or former Postal/Discovery riders to the overall ProTour population? Without those numbers, how can we know if Postal/Discovery riders are testing positive at a higher or lower rate then the total population?


Asgelle, 
The rates of former Postal riders testing positive relative to other teams is frankly irrelevant. What I was alluding to was the fact that two of Discovery's highest profile riders (and Lance for that matter, if you consider the recent revelations made public by L'Equipe regarding his 1999 Tour test samples) had tested positive, although only once they had left the team. The point is this: so many people 'in the know' have made allegations regarding Discovery, while the team has maintained its innocence. One of them must be wrong, don't you think?


----------



## Sintesi (Nov 13, 2001)

gizzard said:


> Asgelle,
> The rates of former Postal riders testing positive relative to other teams is frankly irrelevant. What I was alluding to was the fact that two of Discovery's highest profile riders (and Lance for that matter, if you consider the recent revelations made public by L'Equipe regarding his 1999 Tour test samples) had tested positive, although only once they had left the team. The point is this: so many people 'in the know' have made allegations regarding Discovery, while the team has maintained its innocence. One of them must be wrong, don't you think?



You could look at it another way. 

Tyler was considered a clean rider until he was busted on Phonak, a team that had 3 riders suspended for doping in one year and was nearly kicked out of the pro-Tour. 

One might also note that Heras came from Kelme which is now notorious for doping scandals.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

gizzard said:


> With the news that Roberto Heras had tested 'not negative' to EPO use after stage 20 of this year’s Vuelta, something occurred to me: Both Heras and Hamilton came from US Postal, a team that came under intense media scrutiny and speculation regarding drug use before it was wound up and re-launched under the Discovery moniker. It seems to me that with all the doping allegations made by former riders, soigneurs, doctors etc, that there must be some substance to it all. Where there’s smoke there’s fire, right?


Whatever is going on at Discovery is probably the same stuff that is going on at every major team.


----------



## Howzitbroke (Jun 1, 2005)

*Sad state of things...*

This is closest to the truth for me as well. With so many atheletes at the highest levels testing positive, non negative or simply under suspicion it seems that performance drug use is ingrained into nearly every pro sport. The ideal that hard work, eating and training right, with some talent has been destroyed in the win at all cost world.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Henry Chinaski said:


> They're all dopers. Pro cycling is a great spectacle and soap opera but it's kind of ruined as an actual legitimate sport as far as I'm concerned. No different from most pro "sports" these days...


 If everyone is doping how is it illegitimate? The results are the same as if they were all clean.

I think the testers are trying for a hat trick of grand tour champions: Pantani got booted from the Giro, LA has been retroactively deemed a doper in the Tour, and now Heras gets caught at the Vuelta. Next year's world champion better be very careful.

Personally I am going to be wearing my Mercatone jersey, MET helmet, and get some Nike gloves too.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

terzo rene said:


> If everyone is doping how is it illegitimate? The results are the same as if they were all clean.
> 
> I think the testers are trying for a hat trick of grand tour champions: Pantani got booted from the Giro, LA has been retroactively deemed a doper in the Tour, and now Heras gets caught at the Vuelta. Next year's world champion better be very careful.
> 
> Personally I am going to be wearing my Mercatone jersey, MET helmet, and get some Nike gloves too.


As much as I love Boonen, I can't help but think it's only a matter of time...


----------



## Zampano (Aug 7, 2005)

Howzitbroke said:


> The ideal that hard work, eating and training right, with some talent has been destroyed in the win at all cost world.


You go too far. All of the virtues that you list above are not negated by dope in cycling. Indeed, they all go hand in hand.


----------



## flying (Feb 17, 2004)

Howzitbroke said:


> it seems that performance drug use is ingrained into nearly every pro sport. The ideal that hard work, eating and training right, with some talent has been destroyed in the win at all cost world.


I think it always was. Whether it was legal or not. I mean where does it start & where does it end? Having trained for years & raced in both cycling & some Tri I wonder. I mean when I was training hard god knows I took many things to help. Vitamins, Inositol, Chromium Picolinate, DMG,
Race Caps with synth ATP. Plus others.
So what does that mean? I was not cheating as it was all legal right?
Working hard? Man that was the hardest working time of my life when it came to training. Life was nothing more than resting between traing sessions. Yet I was just a rec/ amateur type. I can only imagine what a real pro goes through training & hard work wise.

I think folks are crazy to think somebody who is at a pro level takes a magic substance then goes & wins. They are training the hardest & have the talent whether they are on or off supplements. I think it is hard for us as arm chair quarterbacks to even conceive of the what or why's they do what they do.
If it is as some say & they are all on something then I think it would be the same if they were all off everything. Meaning the same top 20 would still be the top 20.

Sometimes I wonder if folks really know when it started? I mean cocaine & amphetamines where legal in the tour in the early days right? Folks like Jacques Anquetil & Fuasto Coppi freely admitted to using. Anquetil said....“You’d have to be an imbecile or a hypocrite to imagine that a professional cyclist who rides 235 days a year can hold himself together without stimulants,”

So maybe this is a problem? Maybe we need to realize that a grand tour is drug bait? Who or what human can do 21-23 days of what is equal to a Ironman a day? Should we do away with the Grand Tours?
Or maybe limit the amount a pro can race per year like how Pilots & truckers are limited in miles.

I am not saying illegal drugs are ok nor am I saying it is fair or good sportsmanship. These are just things I wonder about.
Like I said we are all just some form of rec or amateur cyclist. Armchair Quarterbacks Talking about things we really have no idea of. The why's pro's do what they do or need to do what they do can only be known from their end.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

I think professional cycling is probably the hardest sport out there but I think that has almost nothing to do with the doping.

The doping exists because riders need to perform to get contracts and doping either allows them to perform or at least they think it does.

There are any number of sports that no one would consider "hard" where athletes dope.


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

flying said:


> If it is as some say & they are all on something then I think it would be the same if they were all off everything. Meaning the same top 20 would still be the top 20.


That is a convenient rationalization, but it does not hold water. People respond differently to drugs. A person with a low natural hematocrit will get a much greater benefit from EPO than one who has a naturally high one. This is borne out by pro teams testing the hematocrits of undoped pro hopefuls to see who would respond the best to a full medical program. 

Without EPO Pantani would never have won the Tour de France. Period. He may have had a hard time winning the Giro. The last decade and a half is filled with riders who came out of nowhere to reap huge, unexpected victories, showing a dominating strength that had never been seen in their previous years of cycling. For a laugh check out the palmares of Christophe Rinero some time. Meanwhile, Edwig Van Hooydonck, who was at one time expected to go on to become a legendary rider of the northern classics, refused to embrace the "Italian" training methods and was forced into retirement before he was thirty.

Without the doping in cycling does anyone really believe Armstrong would have won an event he never showed any talent for whatsoever?


----------



## flying (Feb 17, 2004)

Like I said arm chair quarterbacks all of us.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

flying said:


> Like I said arm chair quarterbacks all of us.


NIce one!


----------



## Monty Dog (Apr 8, 2004)

Boonen's haematocrit level apparently was around 40% all year - so much for that theory


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

*Where get you.....*



Monty Dog said:


> Boonen's haematocrit level apparently was around 40% all year - so much for that theory


..... information this ?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Monty Dog said:


> Boonen's haematocrit level apparently was around 40% all year - so much for that theory


There are plenty of other drugs.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Mr Hand said:


> ...they are all ON DOPE!


Gerard Vrooman raises an interesting point that disputes this: http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum....=-1;guest=5740104;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC

"OK, here is a question for you. In 1999, there was no test for EPO. Cost for an athlete was about 5,000 Euros per month for EPO, so well within range for any good cyclist. Yet when they went back to test the 1999 Tour samples (which was where the Armstrong mess came from), only a small minority tested positive. And these were not tests on a random sample of Tour participants, these were heavily skewed towards the jersey wearers and the stage winners.

"So if there is a miracle drug that is cheap and undetectable at the time, and only a small minority in the end tests positive for it, why would you say that ALL cyclists use PEDs? Or why would you not believe Willy Voet, who has a vast interest in naming as many names as possible, when he says that about half of the Festina team wasn't on the program? "


----------



## gizzard (Oct 5, 2005)

I never said that all professional cyclists use or used performance enhancing drugs. I said that a large number do, although it's impossible to ascertain what that number is because it's an illegal activity and therefore carried out in a clandestine manner. As for those who did not test positive for EPO use back in 1999, I can accept that it is entirely possible that either there was no EPO in their samples at the time the samples were taken, or else they were totally clean. That is not beyond the realms of possibility. But I think it is also naive to assume that only the top guys are on the goods. If anything the domestiques need PEDs as much as their team leaders do (maybe more so), not because the domestiques have a chance of winning a stage, but because they have to do so much damn donkey work for the team that many of them are forced to take PEDs just to get out of bed in the morning. 
Unfortunately most drug-related conversation is speculative because there is virtually no reliable data underpinning what is essentially a criminal activity. As for Willie Voet and his book ‘Breaking the Chain’, I can accept that more than half the Festina riders were not on any PEDs during the 1999 Tour. The corollary of that argument then becomes nearly half of the riders were on PEDs and for a sport that parades itself and ‘clean’ or at least trying to be ‘clean’, that is totally unacceptable.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

5000 euro per month for EPO??? No freaking way - street price was around 180 Euros per vial. More like 5000 per year. Which is still about what it costs for pretty high dosages. I remember the number because I was stunned that black market prices were less than what my insurance was paying for it at the time, a good indicator of how easy it was/is to get.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

gizzard said:


> I never said that all professional cyclists use or used performance enhancing drugs.


Nor did I say you did, but several others here and elsewhere have.


----------



## Veloflash (Apr 21, 2002)

*Fallacy*



gizzard said:


> I never said that all professional cyclists use or used performance enhancing drugs. I said that a large number do, although it's impossible to ascertain what that number is because it's an illegal activity and therefore carried out in a clandestine manner. As for those who did not test positive for EPO use back in 1999, I can accept that it is entirely possible that either there was no EPO in their samples at the time the samples were taken, or else they were totally clean. That is not beyond the realms of possibility. But I think it is also naive to assume that only the top guys are on the goods. If anything the domestiques need PEDs as much as their team leaders do (maybe more so), not because the domestiques have a chance of winning a stage, but because they have to do so much damn donkey work for the team that many of them are forced to take PEDs just to get out of bed in the morning.
> Unfortunately most drug-related conversation is speculative because there is virtually no reliable data underpinning what is essentially a criminal activity. As for Willie Voet and his book ‘Breaking the Chain’, I can accept that more than half the Festina riders were not on any PEDs during the 1999 Tour. The corollary of that argument then becomes nearly half of the riders were on PEDs and for a sport that parades itself and ‘clean’ or at least trying to be ‘clean’, that is totally unacceptable.


The problem with that argument is the incidence in which the French urine test can pick up EPO use.

The window of opportunity was only 2-3 days after administration. As there was no test in 1999, medicos had not implemented micro dosing to beat the tests.

As stage winner and Yellow Jersey holder LA was tested 15 times but only 6 of those B samples came up positive. If one rider is tested for 15 stages out of 20 the window of opportunity will obtain a detection if EPO is used.

Even applied retrospectively to 1999, the French urine test would not garner a supportable sample statistic of the real EPO use in the peloton.

In respect of USPS formers being detected for EPO and blood doping. Remember that USPS had contracted the services of Dr Michele Ferrari as a trainer until 2004. He was even observed around the Discovery training location in 2005 after his services were publicly terminated by LA.


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

Veloflash said:


> Even applied retrospectively to 1999, the French urine test would not garner a supportable sample statistic of the real EPO use in the peloton.


1999 would be a bad year to base statistics on. Teams were afraid of being raided and criminally prosecuted. It may be that Postal was the only team that decided to risk EPO use during the race. Other teams might simply have doped right up to the moment they left for France, in which case you would only expect to get positives for the prologue and maybe stage 1. 

1998 would be a much better gauge of how prevalent usage was, and the 40+ positives seem to confirm that.


----------



## wipeout (Jun 6, 2005)

Under ACrookedSky said:


> Without the doping in cycling does anyone really believe Armstrong would have won an event he never showed any talent for whatsoever?


Huh? Never showed any talent whatsoever? Are you kidding, or are YOU on dope, dude?


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

wipeout said:


> Huh? Never showed any talent whatsoever? Are you kidding, or are YOU on dope, dude?


Dude, point out a sign of grand tour g.c. talent in the first "half" of Armstrong's career. For bonus money point out a sign that happened before he hooked up with Dr. Ferrari.

* Could not time trial.

* Could not climb.

* Could not even finish the Tour before talking with Motorola teammates like Stephen Swart about starting a medical program for the 1995 Tour.

* Signs of becoming a decent one day racer? Yes. GTs? No.


----------



## flying (Feb 17, 2004)

Under ACrookedSky said:


> Dude, point out a sign of grand tour g.c. talent in the first "half" of Armstrong's career. For bonus money point out a sign that happened before he hooked up with Dr. Ferrari.
> 
> * Could not time trial.
> 
> ...


Like many young riders from USA of that time period & earlier it was a learning time. Folks like Davis Phinney took what 2 or 3 tries before he ever finished one TDF? Americans had no real stage racing to cut their teeth on. As for talent he was one of the youngest Triathletes to win what he did. So there was TT abilities developing.
Was he not also the youngest rider to win the worlds?
Endurance does not come at a very young age. But greatness does not stray far from where it shows early indications like it did with LA.

For you to suggest that only a magic potion is needed to turn anyone into a 7 time tour winner then I am sure in the past 23 years someone from your hometown of Paris would have nailed a few eh?
Is that why the French are so bitter about all of this?

I am not saying anyone takes or does not take drugs but to imply any drug turns anyone into a 7 time TDF winner??? Wow I gotta get me some of that


----------



## Veloflash (Apr 21, 2002)

flying said:


> Like many young riders from USA of that time period it was a learning time. Folks like Davis Phinney took what 3 tries before he ever finished one? As for talent he was one of the youngest Triathletes to win what he did. So there was TT abilities developing.
> Was he not also the youngest rider to win the worlds?
> Endurance does not come at a very young age. But greatness does not stray far from where it shows early indications like it did with LA.
> 
> ...


Are you aware there was a very odd study produced by Dr Edward Coyle of the University of Texas that plotted LA's fitness from 1992-1999 but only published in June 2005?

Coyle's hypothesis was that LA had converted fast twitch fibre (used for anaerobic efforts) to slow twitch fibre (used for endurance). Without a muscle biopsy he guessed that LA's fast twitch fibre had reduced from 30% to 20% and, to balance, his slow twitch fibre had increased from 70% to 80%. An unproven study.

However, with 20% fast twitch fibre you would not be able to sprint out of a wet paper bag!

In those 7 years Coyle tested LA at a level <b>above</b> his anaerobic threshold and produced wattages in the range of 360-400.

Fast forward to June 2004 and Dr Michelle Ferrari is testing LA to produce 493 watts of power <b>at threshold</b> - not above threshold as in the 1992-1999 Coyle study. Curiously in the same 2004 season LA won a bunch sprint in the Tour of Georgia, led out a team mate in the sprint in an early season European race and sprinted down Landis and Kloden to win a stage of the TdF.

How would Coyle account for the improvement 1999-2004 if his hypothesis was continuing FT fibre conversion? How could LA sprint with FT fibre in further decline 1999-2004?

It is apparent his improvement was by means other than the FT fibre conversion Coyle gives credit.

You may recall LA on CNN being interviewed by Larry King. Here is an extract:

<i><b>CALLER:</b> Hello. Can altitude training change blood -- kind of body chemistry by raising red blood cells? 

<b>KING:</b> Good question. 

<b>ARMSTRONG:</b> Absolutely. Absolutely. That's the whole idea behind it. I mean, when you go -- if you use certain things like hemoglobin and hematocrit as parameters, if you're a sea level athlete, you start at a hematocrit of 41 or 42, you spend two or three months at altitude, you might be close to 50. It makes a big difference.</I>

There has been many studies undertaken about the effect of altitude training in all its forms on hct. The conclusion is unequivocally that altitude training provides a cellular benefit with a high level of non responders and extremely minor blood chemistry benefit, if any at all. The more highly trained the athlete the less overall benefit. The only increase in hct I have seen in a study was about 1%.

There are some altitude training references within this post:

http://www.cyclingforums.com/showpost.php?p=2320908&postcount=13

This altitude training claim by LA on <i>Larry King Live</i> is quite false. You may note he said an improvement of 41 or 42 to 50. The 41 was his hct count that LA referred to Emma O'Reilly in <i>La Confidential</i>


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

flying said:


> I am not saying anyone takes or does not take drugs but to imply any drug turns anyone into a 7 time TDF winner??? Wow I gotta get me some of that


And without EPO Armstrong would have won seven times? 

Name another multiple winner who never showed signs that he would one day win. An accellerated pattern would be the career of Fignon. 15th in the Giro in his first year as a professional. 8th in the Vuelta the following year and later that year victory in the Tour in his first attempt. Cunego has a nice progression in his Giro results. Was there ever any doubt that Lemond would win the Tour one day? Or Merckx? Or Hinault? Long before 1991 spaniards were waiting for Indurain to become his team's captain.

You can believe what you want about the American, but I honestly do not think he would have ever won the Tour de France if it were not for the current drug corruption of the sport. If I am wrong then that is unfair to Mr. Armstrong, but it just goes to show how the string of doping affairs has robbed the sport and individual riders' accomplishments of all credibility.


----------



## flying (Feb 17, 2004)

Under ACrookedSky said:


> And without EPO Armstrong would have won seven times?


Like I said ""
*I am not saying anyone takes or does not take drugs but to imply any drug turns anyone into a 7 time TDF winner???* ""

Drugs are in the peloton yes. Has anyone been tested more than LA?
Do I believe he took drugs? I prefer to let the tests do the talking. I know who took drugs when they are caught or admit it. I don't believe in guilty till proven innocent.
I also don't think the folks who sell supposed info to make money when extortion fails...ie: ex employees or ex teammates hold much water either.
To use examples like Fignon or anyone from that time period & before as a example of non drug use excellence is truely blind.


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

Veloflash said:


> Are you aware there was a very odd study produced by Dr Edward Coyle...


There is an interesting story about Dr. Coyle in L.A. Confidential: Greg Lemond bumped into him and started to take him to task for saying that higher cadence would allow higher power output. Coyle responded with his usual stories about Armstrong, at which point Lemond asked him if he knew that Armstrong was being looked after by Dr. Ferrari. Lemond reported that Coyle turned white with shock.

I guess when you base years of your career on a test subject, it is hard to do an about face. Dr. Coyle is still publishing papers based on Armstrong.


----------



## flying (Feb 17, 2004)

PS: Don't get me wrong I am not a big LA fan at all.
I barely watched the tour this year & last because it had become so boring.
I felt like this is how the fans must have felt in Merckx time period.
I longed for the great battles like before. I loved the days of Delgado & Roche.
Remember the time Roche pulled back all that time on that mountain stage? Then collapsed & had to be given oxygen & be sent off the mountain on a helicopter? Or the year he won the Tour the Giro & the worlds? Then went & splintered the boards on a velodrom with his knee? Never even getting to ride with the world champ stripes ? That is what I mean about these things. How would those things be viewed today?
I love cycling


----------



## gizzard (Oct 5, 2005)

I remember those days with fondness as well. By the way, if my memory serves me correctly, Roche almost caught Perico (Delgado) on Luz Ardiden in the 1987 Tour, which turned out to be his one and only victory. But it was a good year for him winning the Worlds and Giro as well, becoming only the second man to win all three in a single year after Merckx. 
I also remember those fantastic struggles of years past with names like Lemond, Fignon, Jean Francois Bernard, Marino Lejaretta, Steven Rooks, Raul Alcala, Steve Bauer, Jean-Paul van Poppel, Eddy Plankaert, Charly Mottet and Jelle Nijdam. Naturally not all of them were great GC riders and not all were superstars, but they were good for the sport and they were all pure class (in my opinion anyway). Thank God lance is gone – his presence at the Tour was a bit like that of Darth Vader. Maybe this year we'll get a more open, and, dare I say it, fair race.


----------



## gizzard (Oct 5, 2005)

I agree with that assessment regarding EPO, its availability and its cost. To assume that the average European pro would be prepared to spend 5,000 euros on EPO per month is unrealistic. There guys are not NFL superstars; they are middle-of-the-bunch European pros earning in the region of 75,000 to 100,000 euros per annum. Once that is taxed there isn't a helluva lot of disposable income once the 5,000 euros of EPO has been accounted for each month. 
The reality is that EPO is significantly cheaper than that. How much depends on the source. Essentially doping is a criminal activity throughout Europe, which means these guys are getting their goods on the black market. My guess (and this is only a guess) is that they would not be spending much more than 500 euros per month on doping products. But depending on who you are and what team you ride for, your drug requirements (including monitoring of you haematocrit level) may be taken care of by the team.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

One thing you have to keep in mind about the Coyle study is that all but one of the tests (I think) were done in the off-season where you would expect Armstrong's LT to be considerably lower than what he would put out in peak condition.

Lance is no sprinter, he won that sprint stage in Georgia because it was a hard finish with a hill in it that he got over near the front which either washed away any of the real sprinters or at least left them way in the red.

Too much is made of fiber type. Lots of things affect sprint ability, like size (muscle mass), muscle length (longer muscles contract faster than short muscles), neurological factors.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

asgelle said:


> Or why would you not believe Willy Voet, who has a vast interest in naming as many names as possible, when he says that about half of the Festina team wasn't on the program? "


Actually I thought Voet said they were all on the program with a few notable exceptions like Bassons?

I've got to agree with the other posters about the '99 tests as well. First off, I believe there < 80 urine tests and given the multiple tests of certain athletes I'd reckon less than 1/3 of riders were even tested and therefore could have failed for EPO use. Given that of those 50 or so riders that were tested most would have been a 1 time thing and the limited window of detection (3 days AT BEST) and little need to inject EPO daily at the time you certainly wouldn't expect every rider or even most who were using EPO to turn up a positive test. Not to mention the test is probably biased against false positives and therefore probably gives a bunch of false negatives.

Good point about the teams possibly being afraid of doping during the race because of the police. Certainly the fact that all 4 riders tested in the prologue were positive would lend some credance to that theory.

Is it also telling that the one rider tested regularly showed a pattern of positives that would be consistent with typical EPO use?


----------



## flying (Feb 17, 2004)

gizzard said:


> I also remember those fantastic struggles of years past with names like Lemond, Fignon, Jean Francois Bernard, Marino Lejaretta, Steven Rooks, Raul Alcala, Steve Bauer, Jean-Paul van Poppel, Eddy Plankaert, Charly Mottet and Jelle Nijdam.


Those were the best days I agree!
Also Gert-Jan Theunisse aka Geronimo, Rooks sidekick  When the two of them got together wow.
van Poppel always amazed me in the sprint. Explosive he was!
Even though Bernard seemed a bit pamperd he always was great to watch. That TT of his was great.
Yes good memorys of excellent racing!


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

flying said:


> Those were the best days I agree!
> Also Gert-Jan Theunisse aka Geronimo, Rooks sidekick  When the two of them got together wow.


Theunisse and Rooks seem strange choices in light of this discussion (or are you being ironic). Both have admitted to using banned drugs (testosterone and amphetamine). http://au.cyclingnews.com/results/2000/jan00/jan1news.shtml


----------



## flying (Feb 17, 2004)

asgelle said:


> Theunisse and Rooks seem strange choices in light of this discussion (or are you being ironic). Both have admitted to using banned drugs (testosterone and amphetamine). http://au.cyclingnews.com/results/2000/jan00/jan1news.shtml


No I am aware of those things.
I was just replying to watching good racing. As I said back in post #12
It always was there.
I only mentioned the names in context of good close racing as opposed to the more boring racing of recent years.


----------



## Veloflash (Apr 21, 2002)

*Coyle Study*



Dwayne Barry said:


> One thing you have to keep in mind about the Coyle study is that all but one of the tests (I think) were done in the off-season where you would expect Armstrong's LT to be considerably lower than what he would put out in peak condition.
> 
> Lance is no sprinter, he won that sprint stage in Georgia because it was a hard finish with a hill in it that he got over near the front which either washed away any of the real sprinters or at least left them way in the red.
> 
> Too much is made of fiber type. Lots of things affect sprint ability, like size (muscle mass), muscle length (longer muscles contract faster than short muscles), neurological factors.


Coyle has come into valid criticism from overseas sports physiologists about his LA study. If you have a subscription I suggest you read them on the Journal of Applied Physiology site.

Coyle tested LA in September 1993 just after he won the World Championship and while he was still racing. He refers to that test in the text of his study and some performance figures but excludes those figures from his comparative table. I would suggest those figures would skew the trend and further question his conclusion.

LA was near the front but not on the front going over the Second Street Hill in the 2004 Tour of Georgia. Sprinters plus Hincapie, Julich and Horner were there. He did not drop the bunch on the hill and sprint solo to the finish. He contested the sprint against established sprinters Dominiguez and Brooks and came over them with a classic bike throw at the line.

You are expressing a lone opinion about fast twitch v slow twitch and the effect on sprinting. Your opinion is contrary to every established study.

<i>The greater percentage of FT fibers in sprinters enables them to produce greater muscle force and power than their ST -fibered counterparts (Fitts & Widrick, 1996).</i>

<i>At any given velocity of movement, the amount of force produced depends on the fiber type. During a dynamic contraction, when the fiber is either shortening or lengthening, a fast-twitch (FT) fiber produces more force than a slow-twitch (ST) fiber (Fitts & Widrick, 1996).</i>

Comparing fast twitch to slow twitch is as productive as comparing chalk to cheese. There is no cross over. They are grossly dissimilar in size of motor neuron, resistance to fatigue, force production, mitochondrial density, capillary density, oxidative capacity, glycolytic capacity and storage fuel.


----------



## cmatcan (Oct 6, 2005)

this doesn't mean discovery has more doping- the fact that a single team produces 2 or 3 dopers is simply a testament to the fact that doping is running rampant in cycling- there shouldn't even be 3 dopers TOTAL, let alone from one team.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Under ACrookedSky said:


> And without EPO Armstrong would have won seven times?
> 
> Name another multiple winner who never showed signs that he would one day win. An accellerated pattern would be the career of Fignon. 15th in the Giro in his first year as a professional. 8th in the Vuelta the following year and later that year victory in the Tour in his first attempt. Cunego has a nice progression in his Giro results. Was there ever any doubt that Lemond would win the Tour one day? Or Merckx? Or Hinault? Long before 1991 spaniards were waiting for Indurain to become his team's captain.
> 
> You can believe what you want about the American, but I honestly do not think he would have ever won the Tour de France if it were not for the current drug corruption of the sport. If I am wrong then that is unfair to Mr. Armstrong, but it just goes to show how the string of doping affairs has robbed the sport and individual riders' accomplishments of all credibility.


Indurain was a rouleur up until 1990 when he won in front of Lemond in the mountains. He showed class but not that he'd win 5 on the trot, in the manner he did


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Indurain won the Tour of Catalonia in 1988 (not exactly one for the rouleurs), Paris-Nice back to back in 1989 - 1990, along with stages in the TdF each year (one a mountain top finish) and the Classica San Sebastian in 1990.

Since Paris-Nice has generally been taken as an indicator of future Tour winning talent I would say back to back wins indicated a fairly special rider. Besides, from the time he was Delgado's lieutenant he was being spoken of as a potenital Tour winner.


----------



## flying (Feb 17, 2004)

Bianchigirl said:


> Since Paris-Nice has generally been taken as an indicator of future Tour winning talent


Not to say Indurain was not a great rider but.........To say Paris Nice is a early indicator of future tour winners is false IMHO
If it was Jalabert won it 3 times in a row but was never going to win a tour.
Or Sean Kelly? Seven times in a row! Same never going to be a Tour winner.
Vinokourov two times in a row......Maybe he can win a tour we will see.

I think the one thing that is not accounted for in this discussion about whether or not a person like LA can or should have won a Tour 7 times
Is HEART
You see it all the time in other racing like even horse racing. Folks say well that horse does not have the breeding or right muscle type. Yet this horse defies the odds & wins.
There is no accounting for this variable in any lab. Measure all you want. Check the muscle fiber types etc. But maybe just maybe someone will come along & defy the odds. Maybe it is someone who fought death & won. Someone with a iron will to overcome things that would knock a less willful person to the ranks of also rans? Someone who felt like they were given a second chance & wanted to give it more than the next guy. Maybe the pain in a tour was nothing compared to pain already conquered? I wonder....


----------



## Veloflash (Apr 21, 2002)

*Lab measurement*



flying said:


> Not to say Indurain was not a great rider but.........To say Paris Nice is a early indicator of future tour winners is false IMHO
> If it was Jalabert won it 3 times in a row but was never going to win a tour.
> Or Sean Kelly? Seven times in a row! Same never going to be a Tour winner.
> Vinokourov two times in a row......Maybe he can win a tour we will see.
> ...


 Actually it has been measured under laboratory conditions.

The results were the difference is very marginal and the common denominator in athletes who could endure more pain compared with their physiological equals was a lower IQ!


----------



## flying (Feb 17, 2004)

Veloflash said:


> Actually it has been measured under laboratory conditions.
> 
> The results were the difference is very marginal and the common denominator in athletes who could endure more pain compared with their physiological equals was a lower IQ!



LOL...What next ....they will come up with a measurement for Heart?
Pain management in the lab is one thing. In the heat of competition? I assure you is another.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Comparing fast twitch to slow twitch is as productive as comparing chalk to cheese. There is no cross over. They are grossly dissimilar in size of motor neuron, resistance to fatigue, force production, mitochondrial density, capillary density, oxidative capacity, glycolytic capacity and storage fuel.[/QUOTE]

I haven't seen the criticisms published in JAP on the Coyle study. Frankly, I can't believe it was actually published there as it really adds little or nothing to the literature. You misunderstand my point about fiber types. No doubt there are gross differences in isolated fibers and muscles made up of primarily of one type vs. another. My point was taking athletes who are ALL highly adapted to endurance training and assuming one who outsprints another did so because of a greather percentage of FT vs. ST muscle is probably not valid. There are numerous physiologic factors besides fiber type that affect one's sprint not to mention a sprint at the end of a bike race has all kinds of "skill" components as well.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*well to me it almost proves the inverse*

if Postal/Disco was King's of Dope why no busts in 7 years?
if you answer secret/special dope, why then do ex Postal/Disco riders either rat them out or use the same secret techniques? they all get busted under someone elses watch and care so why blame their former employer/team? That sounds like the same sour grapes as was put out against Merckx. I'm no LA Homer either but to blame Postal/Discovery for 
what went on at Phonak and Kelme/ Liberty is pretty frickin lame. Heras hasn't been with Postal for what 3 years as Hamilton is 4. Pretty frickin lame. heck why not pin Hamilton's ills on Bjarne and CSC? that's where 'he got good' afterall. So what does Tyler's issue have in common with anything else, oh his PHONAK teammates, oh yeah definitely Bjarne and Johan's doing.

Troll


----------



## olds_cool (Feb 14, 2005)

*do you mean.....*

Without the doping in cycling does anyone really believe Armstrong would have won an event he never showed any talent for whatsoever?[/QUOTE]


like when he was a junior and turning almost pro level tri times? or when he won the tour dupont, tour of west virginia, and thrift drug classic in the same season? against visiting europeans as well as america's best?

or the world championships as, what, a 21 year old euro pro? 

that guy was measured off the charts as a junior racer. he had lactic threashold above just about an measured human when he was tested as a junior. you think the usoc had him on drugs when he was a junior racer?

while i doubt he is as inoncent as he claims, you need to re-think your statement about his level of talent.


----------

