Did Discovery buy a Lemon?

On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 16:20:56 -0800, GaryG wrote:
Like that "modest" VO2 max that he used to beat elite level
triathletes when he was 16 years old?

What, He has been doping *that* long?!


--
Firefox Web Browser - Rediscover the web - http://getffox.com/
Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://gettbird.com/

B Lafferty wrote:

Perhaps he's bluffing. Nah. He wouldn't do something like that.
I was riding with a good friend today who often has interesting
insights into that which is hidden from most.

You ride bikes with Carnac the Magnificent ???

"GaryG" wrote in message
...
"B Lafferty" wrote in message
ink.net...

"crit PRO" wrote in message
ups.com...
BULL****

The time loss is virtually meaningless. The form indicator is the real
value.

Since you don't race, here it is..... If you lose 30 seconds in 4
minutes, the rest of the race isn't your friend. The next few days and
longer distances will confirm the strength of the inform, and the
weakness of the ill-prepared.

This isn't some Alpe D'Huez bluff, knucklehead. Oh yeah, the winners
of prologues rarely state that it is meaningless....just the losers.

He won his first TT in 2004 in February. We're off to a BAD start.
Facts do not lie.

crit PRO


Perhaps he's bluffing. Nah. He wouldn't do something like that.
I was riding with a good friend today who often has interesting insights
into that which is hidden from most. Bill knows of what I write. My
friend
firmly believes that Armstrong will no longer risk EPO, blood doping or
whatever he might have been doing. He will therefore perform this season
as
a person of his modest VO2 Max, height and weight would be expected to
perform. I have no idea if my friend is correct or not. Perhaps age
will
simply catch up with Armstrong this season. Time will reveal all.


Like that "modest" VO2 max that he used to beat elite level triathletes
when
he was 16 years old?
GG

The VO2 Max of 82 as tested in the lab by Dr. Eddie Coyle that somehow keeps
creeping up on Armstrong's web site? First 82, the 83 and the 83.8, IIRC,
the last time I checked. Yeah, that VO2 Max. If you ever run into Coyle,
ask him if there's anything he considers inaccurate about the conversation
with Lemond at the conference in Texas that's related in the Walsh book
particularly his answer was to the final question Lemond put to him after
the Coyle presentation.


FWIW, I don't know whether or not he's clean, but Lance was beating
serious
professionals when he first came onto the scene as a teenager, so his
genetics are apparently somewhat more than "modest".

Yes indeed! All those serious professionals he couldn't stay with in the
mountains in those pre-1999 Tours that he rode and didn't always finish.
Oh, but I forgot. The cancer caused him to loose so much weight that he
could limb like the Eagle of Toledo or that Pirate guy. Don't forget all
those serious professionals that he beat when first riding for Motorola. Who
were they again, Gary? I can't recall. You do recall each one of his five
(5) victories as a professional from 1992 through 1995. Not quite
dominating, but then he was so much heavier then and probably had the cancer
spreading throughout his system from the time he turned pro onwards.

Gary, do you believe in fairies? I thought so.

wrote in message
oups.com...
B Lafferty wrote:

Perhaps he's bluffing. Nah. He wouldn't do something like that.
I was riding with a good friend today who often has interesting
insights into that which is hidden from most.

You ride bikes with Carnac the Magnificent ???


:-)

B Lafferty wrote:

Gary, do you believe in fairies? I thought so.


If he doesn't, that's OK. I still believe in you, Brian!

B Lafferty wrote:

The VO2 Max of 82 as tested in the lab by Dr. Eddie Coyle that
somehow keeps
creeping up on Armstrong's web site? First 82, the 83 and the 83.8,
IIRC,
the last time I checked. Yeah, that VO2 Max.

**** you're dense. if you presented this and stuff you scanned a while
ago was as evidence of doping you would be stripped naked by anyone
that knows anything about the subject.

not only are the numbers you're tossing around normalized to mass, they
vary over time and if you saw the plots from coyle's data that robert
chung posted you'd see there isn't a good correlation between TT
performance and VO2max.

this whole line of argument (that someone can't be this good without
dope) isn't evidence for **** all.

the only halfway credible stuff in the walsh book is the material from
swart.

the rest are all innuendos, "make up" and "unmarked packages"

On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 14:53:17 +0100, "Robert Chung"
wrote:

Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
"amit" schreef in bericht
**** you're dense. if you presented this and stuff you scanned a while
ago was as evidence of doping you would be stripped naked by anyone
that knows anything about the subject.

I don't think anyone (except maybe Armstrong himself) can present
irrefutable evidence that he doped, but I wouldn't be too sure that he
was always completely and utterly clean. [...] To think that Armstrong
can win year after year without using drugs to prepare his body for
that short period of the year strikes me as a bit naïve.

Perhaps I misread Amit but I don't think he been saying that Armstrong has
always been completely and utterly clean. I think he's been saying that
Brian is ****ing dense.

Just trying to be helpful.



Armstrong (and if guilty, a few others) are the only ones who would
truely know. It's possible he's done all of this without enhancers but
the output will always make people suspicious.

What makes people look DENSE is the endless illogical arguing about
this subject. Certain retards, who shall remane nameless, are never
going to change their minds and only see the evidence that supports
their position. Everything else is garbage.

It's just stupid.

Musashi

In article .com,
" wrote:

B Lafferty wrote:

Perhaps he's bluffing. Nah. He wouldn't do something like that.
I was riding with a good friend today who often has interesting
insights into that which is hidden from most.

You ride bikes with Carnac the Magnificent ???


Well, better that than Topo Gigio...

--
tanx,
Howard

Butter is love.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

crit PRO schreef:

BULL****

The time loss is virtually meaningless. The form indicator is the real
value.



A close look indicates Azevedo and Rubiera performed at LANCE's level (also
Beltan, but this was never his thing) . Also Ekimov ends a lot lower than
could be expected.

Van Hoorebeeck Bart wrote:

A close look indicates Azevedo and Rubiera performed at LANCE's level
(also Beltan, but this was never his thing) . Also Ekimov ends a lot
lower than could be expected.

You could pretty much tell who wasn't serious about the prologue by
whether they showed up at the starting gate wearing leg warmers (with the
notable exception of E. Dekker). I didn't see all the Discovery riders but
all the ones I saw were wearing leg warmers.

Vinokourov was using those funky oval chainrings he used at last year's
worlds.