Armstrong making a comeback?

[CL]

I am not taking sides as I don't know enough of the subject to judge BUT I did see the end of a program a month or so ago about Lance.

It was showing the results of tests run on Lance over the years and trying to compare his results against other sportsmen.
The main thing I remember was that his lactic thresehold was a lot higher than the other test subjects, the other tests showed his body was exceptional when at it's peak and this peak was above most other sportsmen.

I don't know if he was/is on drugs but every now and then there is an individual who has 'evolved' that bit better than the others at the time.
The drugs issue now clouds what could be an exceptional sportman who will always be challenged for cheating because he wins.

I would like to think he is an exceptional athelete but who knows other than Lance himself?

Danazz if you were put on a course of anabolic steroids and EPO then I can tell you now your anaerobic threshold would be higher than athletes who weren't on those drugs, and it would be higher in you than it was before you took the drugs.

[CL]

yes he was 7 times
the reason i think he managed it was he peaked every year at spot on the start of june, he hardly raced which was never done before prior to Armstrong doing it. His team was far superior than any other team( this was crucial to his success.)
He along with his trainer developed high cadence( ie higher than anyone else) this I believe stole the show in the first two tours.
Yes pantani could do it uphill ( Ulrich couldnt ) but pantani never had the team backing of excellent climbers
So although you saw other riders up there with Armstrong in the mountains they could not get the help in the other stages.


So if the mountains where crucial Armstrong new this and forced his team to ride before the big climbs at breakneck speed, he then simply watched as his barely raced legs accelarate away from most, not all of the other riders. I could not have passsed all those tests if he was doped. what I do belive is that due to his cancer he had a genuine suffering of the bike that no one in the peloton could have.
Also many in the peloton where silenced before the start of each of the first stage.
In effect he knew he was racing against no more than say 5 people. The team took care of the rest. Those who posed a threat where quickly bought into the team or given the cold treatment.

My only doubt is that because of his lack of races he could possibly escape certain tests at certain times of the year.
The doping side of bike racing is very complicated.
What else do you want me to say

If the UCI allowed the limit to be 50% then if you took EPO to boost your level to that amount it was all okay. If at 49.5% you became the best rider in the world then lucky you.
Next question Chris

I'm just going to bang my head on the wall 1000 times

[Grouse]

Chris Leigh - now there's a man who knows how to suffer .

[stevefoster]

I'm just going to bang my head on the wall 1000 times

A pointless exercise CL, you'll just end up doped up
Now a good excercise for the brain is.................................

[DanAzz]

Danazz if you were put on a course of anabolic steroids and EPO then I can tell you now your anaerobic threshold would be higher than athletes who weren't on those drugs, and it would be higher in you than it was before you took the drugs.

Too true Chris, the problem is he will never get away from the drugs issue and will never be able to prove if he is an naturally exceptional athelete or not.
I think the program claimed that the blood work they did showed he was clean but as already mentioned there are ways round that which is why the whole subject is a matter of personal opinion. Interesting debate though!

[daz h]

I'm just going to bang my head on the wall 1000 times

Well Chris
what a crap response
I think you should give up the debate. Ive told you how i see Armstong and cycling in general and you bloody have just given up and started banging your head against the wall.
In my view ive backed you in a corner with the truth and you cant accept it.

You should give some positive ideas on how to make cycling cleaner instead of harping on about Lance. You dont mention Mercyx, De Vlaeminick, Van Loy, Moser, Hinault, Museeuw, Van Steenbergen, Kelly or some of the other greats.
Incidentally they all won Paris Roubaix unlike Lance who never bothered with it.
Yes some took drugs but they generally raced 250 days a year unlike Lance who mostly turned up for 30 and people like you didnt like it because he won 7 tours

goodnight

[CL]

Well Chris
what a crap response
I think you should give up the debate. Ive told you how i see Armstong and cycling in general and you bloody have just given up and started banging your head against the wall.
In my view ive backed you in a corner with the truth and you cant accept it.

You should give some positive ideas on how to make cycling cleaner instead of harping on about Lance. You dont mention Mercyx, De Vlaeminick, Van Loy, Moser, Hinault, Museeuw, Van Steenbergen, Kelly or some of the other greats.
Incidentally they all won Paris Roubaix unlike Lance who never bothered with it.
Yes some took drugs but they generally raced 250 days a year unlike Lance who mostly turned up for 30 and people like you didnt like it because he won 7 tours

goodnight

That has got to be the funniest post ever. The irony is sensational.

Daz H why should I give ideas on how to make cycling cleaner when according to you, Armstrong was clean? If you really believed that, you wouldn't ask for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Just let Armstrong back into cycling and the dopers won't win.

To be honest most people on here don't get it. They don't have the knowledge to make a decision on the subject, so they give the benefit of the doubt, which is exactly what Armstrong wants.

I've explained it so many times in so many different ways, that any one with a modicum of intelligence would understand.

So instead of banging my head against the wall, I won't say anymore on the subject, unless someone makes a really good point.

[Grouse]

Good on you Chris. There's no value in banging your head against a wall.

[daz h]

That has got to be the funniest post ever. The irony is sensational.

Daz H why should I give ideas on how to make cycling cleaner when according to you, Armstrong was clean? If you really believed that, you wouldn't ask for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Just let Armstrong back into cycling and the dopers won't win.

To be honest most people on here don't get it. They don't have the knowledge to make a decision on the subject, so they give the benefit of the doubt, which is exactly what Armstrong wants.

I've explained it so many times in so many different ways, that any one with a modicum of intelligence would understand.

So instead of banging my head against the wall, I won't say anymore on the subject, unless someone makes a really good point.

In armstrongs day Chris , do you think anyone in the peloton was clean. In fact do you think any athlete ever was clean