Fignon Passes

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

"BLafferty" wrote in message
...
: On 8/31/2010 1:39 PM, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
:
: wrote in message
: ...
: :
: : And please, what in the world is "morally superior" about the doping
: : of earlier eras, compared to that of more modern times?
: :
: : I never used the term " morally superior." Less effective is what it
: : was. Almost quaint by the standards of the past 18 years or so.
:
:
:
:
: Dumbass -
:
: Doping is equal opportunity cheating. The methods which were available
in
: Fignon's era were able to be used by *all* the competitors and the
methods
: available today are able to be used by *all* the competitors. The riders
: whom are best able to manage the combination of training, diet, health,
: tactics, genetics, pharmaceuticals, team politics and rest/recovery are
the
: ones who succeed.
:
: The times change, the equipment changes, the riders change, the science
of
: training changes, the knowledge of diet changes, the drugs change, the
teams
: change, but overall, the equation remains the same. There isn't any one
: thing that makes a racer successful - the best ones are good at all of
them.
:
: thanks,
:
: Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
:
:
: This has been discussed here before. There is a qualitative difference
: that is not dependent on whether or not everyone was doing it. Pre-EPO
: most of the PEDs either blocked pain or aided in recovery. They were
: not direct performance enhancers. If anything, the doping post-1992 or
: thereabouts, leveled the field amongst the dopers to an extent never
: seen previously.

Dumbass -

There's an era beyond 1992. The advent of the 50% hematocrit limit, then the
advent of the EPO test itself.

The Wild Wild West Era of bike racing was the period between 1992 and the
advent of the 50% limit. I believe it was 1998 - Pantani got thrown out of
the Giro for his 54% and suddenly Mr. 60% (Riis) no longer had world beating
form and resorted to throwing TT bikes.

It's back to the same old equation. A rider has to manage all the things I
listed in the previous post and then some. It's not a simple matter of
doping/not doping.

thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.

All the other things are easy to manage. Therefore, doping becomes the rate
limiting factor at the pro level.

Thanks,

Magilla

In article
,
SHUSSBAR wrote:

[obituary]

The Jackasses give his doping history.

--
Old Fritz

On 8/31/2010 1:08 PM, Magilla Gorilla wrote:
You left out that most of pro cycling is about genetics. Not training, Not
diet, not anything. Just genetics.


Dumbass,

Good troll. When are you going to tell us about accelerating
in velodrome turns?

Fred Flintstein

"Magilla Gorilla" wrote in message
...
: :
: : This has been discussed here before. There is a qualitative
difference
: : that is not dependent on whether or not everyone was doing it.
Pre-EPO
: : most of the PEDs either blocked pain or aided in recovery. They were
: : not direct performance enhancers. If anything, the doping post-1992 or
: : thereabouts, leveled the field amongst the dopers to an extent never
: : seen previously.
:
: Dumbass -
:
: There's an era beyond 1992. The advent of the 50% hematocrit limit, then
the
: advent of the EPO test itself.
:
: The Wild Wild West Era of bike racing was the period between 1992 and
the
: advent of the 50% limit. I believe it was 1998 - Pantani got thrown out
of
: the Giro for his 54% and suddenly Mr. 60% (Riis) no longer had world
beating
: form and resorted to throwing TT bikes.
:
: It's back to the same old equation. A rider has to manage all the things
I
: listed in the previous post and then some. It's not a simple matter of
: doping/not doping.
:
: thanks,
:
: Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
:
: All the other things are easy to manage. Therefore, doping becomes the
rate
: limiting factor at the pro level.



Dumbass -

I put genetics at #1.

And the other things aren't necessarily easy to manage. Depends upon the
individual. I'm sure you've got some stories about "so and so was talented
as **** but was unable to do this so he sucked" stories to tell.

thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.

"Magilla Gorilla" wrote in message
...
: Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
:
: "BLafferty" wrote in message
: ...
: :
: : And please, what in the world is "morally superior" about the doping
: : of earlier eras, compared to that of more modern times?
: :
: : I never used the term " morally superior." Less effective is what it
: : was. Almost quaint by the standards of the past 18 years or so.
:
: Dumbass -
:
: Doping is equal opportunity cheating. The methods which were available
in
: Fignon's era were able to be used by *all* the competitors and the
methods
: available today are able to be used by *all* the competitors. The riders
: whom are best able to manage the combination of training, diet, health,
: tactics, genetics, pharmaceuticals, team politics and rest/recovery are
the
: ones who succeed.
:
: You left out the part where if they are caught doping and DQ'ed, then all
that
: other stuff is meaningless.
:
:
:
: The times change, the equipment changes, the riders change, the science
of
: training changes, the knowledge of diet changes, the drugs change, the
teams
: change, but overall, the equation remains the same. There isn't any one
: thing that makes a racer successful - the best ones are good at all of
them.
:
: thanks,
:
: Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
:
: You left out that most of pro cycling is about genetics. Not training,
Not
: diet, not anything. Just genetics.



Dumbass -

Weight too.

If a guy is able to race at 160 but doesn't have the discipline to get the
weight below 175 . . . .

thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.

"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote in message
...
::
:: You left out that most of pro cycling is about genetics. Not training,
: Not
:: diet, not anything. Just genetics.
:
:
:
: Dumbass -
:
: Weight too.
:
: If a guy is able to race at 160 but doesn't have the discipline to get the
: weight below 175 . . . .
:
: thanks,
:
: Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
:



BTW, I agree about the genetics.

RicodJour wrote:
On Aug 31, 10:43 am, "Steve Freides" wrote:
SHUSSBAR wrote:
In his book about his career, 'We Were Young and Unconcerned',
Fignon admitted taking amphetamines and cortisone during his career

Cortisone - I never understand why that's banned. It's the opposite
of an anabolic steroid, probably better labelled a catabolic
steroid. I dont' see how it could enhance performance at all. And
there was that incident a few years ago when someone got stung by a
bee and had to drop out because the treatment of choice was
cortisone.

Is there any evidence that cortisone, prednisone, and the like can
actually improve a bike racer's performance? To the best of my
knowledge, they're anti-inflammatory drugs and can't help you race
faster any more than an aspirin or motrin would.

You don't believe there is a connection between pain management and
performance?

I don't know the answer to your question, but may we see if it's a
proper question to ask in this context?

Not everything that manages pain is banned. The purpose of taking
corticosteroids is to reduce inflammation. Naproxen and ibuprofen also
reduce inflammation, and they block pain signals (cox inhibitors). I
don't believe their is a pain signal blocking mechanism at work in
corticosteroids, although reducing inflammation may (obviously) make
something hurt less.

I don't think pain management can be a cause to ban a substance in
bicycle racing. Obviously drugs that can cause a reduction in pain but
have serious other problems - let's say, oh, heroin - should be banned,
but short courses of corticosteroids generally have no ill side effects,
and are great for things like bee stings.

-S-

On Aug 31, 12:39*pm, "Kurgan Gringioni"
wrote:
"BLafferty" wrote in message

...
:
: And please, what in the world is "morally superior" about the doping
: of earlier eras, compared to that of more modern times?
:
: I never used the term " morally superior." *Less effective is what it
: was. Almost quaint by the standards of the past 18 years or so.

Dumbass -

Doping is equal opportunity cheating. The methods which were available in
Fignon's era were able to be used by *all* the competitors and the methods
available today are able to be used by *all* the competitors. The riders
whom are best able to manage the combination of training, diet, health,
tactics, genetics, pharmaceuticals, team politics and rest/recovery are the
ones who succeed.

The times change, the equipment changes, the riders change, the science of
training changes, the knowledge of diet changes, the drugs change, the teams
change, but overall, the equation remains the same. There isn't any one
thing that makes a racer successful - the best ones are good at all of them.

thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.

Could be the best thing you've ever posted and that would be saying
something, dumbass.
--D-y

On Aug 31, 9:43*am, "Steve Freides" wrote:
SHUSSBAR wrote:
In his book about his career, 'We Were Young and Unconcerned', Fignon
admitted taking amphetamines and cortisone during his career

Cortisone - I never understand why that's banned. *It's the opposite of
an anabolic steroid, probably better labelled a catabolic steroid. *I
dont' see how it could enhance performance at all. *And there was that
incident a few years ago when someone got stung by a bee and had to drop
out because the treatment of choice was cortisone.

It's an old school dope - Lance did it in the 90s.

On Aug 31, 1:08*pm, Magilla Gorilla wrote:
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
"BLafferty" wrote in message
m...
:
: And please, what in the world is "morally superior" about the doping
: of earlier eras, compared to that of more modern times?
:
: I never used the term " morally superior." *Less effective is what it
: was. Almost quaint by the standards of the past 18 years or so.

Dumbass -

Doping is equal opportunity cheating. The methods which were available in
Fignon's era were able to be used by *all* the competitors and the methods
available today are able to be used by *all* the competitors. The riders
whom are best able to manage the combination of training, diet, health,
tactics, genetics, pharmaceuticals, team politics and rest/recovery are the
ones who succeed.

You left out the part where if they are caught doping and DQ'ed, then all that
other stuff is meaningless.



The times change, the equipment changes, the riders change, the science of
training changes, the knowledge of diet changes, the drugs change, the teams
change, but overall, the equation remains the same. There isn't any one
thing that makes a racer successful - the best ones are good at all of them.

thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.

You left out that most of pro cycling is about genetics. *Not training, Not
diet, not anything. *Just genetics.

That's why dumb people religiously go home and analyze their power meter data
and go on these weird glutin-free diets, or hire a ****ing Internet
coach...they think it will make them a better rider.

But it won't.

Magilla

If you want to win a bike race you need to pick the right parents.
Any decent cyclist (that wasn't selling a book on how to train) will
tell you that.