"It's Not About the Drugs"

"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
nk.net...

"routebeer" wrote in message
. ..
... Armstrong is, sadly, a firm
believer in the sport's law of omerta, as evidenced by his treatment of
Filipo Simeoni and others who have spoken out of their own experiences
of
drugs in cycling. Greg Lemond best sums up Armstrong's attitude to
those
who
dare to speak openly of the role drugs play in cycling: "The problem
with
Lance is that you're either a liar or you're out to destroy cycling."

I don't think that's fair. Simeoni should not be accusing the peloton
of
doping. I think that's all that Lance means when he says Simeoni hurts
the
sport with his accusations.

Simneoni spoke ONLY about his own use of EPO and his involvment with Dr.
Ferrari. He did not speak out about anyone else in the sport.

Simeoni is just trying to draw attention to himself by accusing Ferrari of
doping/helping riders. Ferrari works with and consults a number of the
elite pros (as I understand it) so when he is accused of this then all those
he consults are harmed. At first Simeoni claimed just the opposite, then
realized that that was a mistake and that he could draw attention to himself
by saying that Ferrari helped him understand how to dope and avoid
detection. Lance is right about Simeoni being a liar and right that he's
only hurting the sport. Ferrari is a dumbass because of a stupid comment
about how safe EPO was. All of this is much more reasonable and in tune
with real life than your extravagant conspiracy theories that you obsess
over (and there is nothing wrong with that, baseball needs more like you).


The bottom line is, until a rider tests positive or found possessing
drugs,
he shouldn't be accused. Personally, I don't think the peloton is
nearly
as
corrupt as cynics like you like to believe.

Think what you like. The reality is quite different.

Then why are riders not returning positives on surprise out of competition
tests?

Please put responses on the top of previous posts. It's hard to scroll down
and is bad etiquet.

wrote in message
oups.com...
B. Lafferty wrote:
"Philip Holman" wrote in message
"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
"Philip Holman" wrote in message
"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
"Philip Holman" wrote in message

Very old news. Oxygen uptake is the key. Can the cadence exhibited by
Armstrong be sustained at 480+ watts average on a 30 min+ climb with the
VO2Max that Armstrong has (82 or 83). Vayer thinks not and I suspect
that
is why Coyle is postulating other explainations. Coyle has presented a
hypothesis which he has failed to adequately test on his subject. As we
know, VO2Max is not generally a good predictor of performance except as
to
climbing. (see, e.g. Baker, Arnie, Bicycling Medicine, p. 95, "The test
is a
better predictor of athletic performance in some circumstances than in
others. Some athletic situations have very good correlations with VO2max,
e.g. running and bicycling uphill; some don't")

You didn't get much out of Chung's plot, did you?
That is a bit more authoritative than some sloppy sentence
Arnie Baker tossed off. And cadence is a red herring,
cadence doesn't get you up hills, only power does.

Do you have any idea what form of doping or other cheating
would increase efficiency (defined here as power over oxygen
uptake)? This is a sincere question. Modern forms of doping
like EPO have concentrated on increasing oxygen capacity
through increasing hematocrit, not increasing efficiency.
I suppose amphetamines or pot belge could give an athlete a
temporary boost, but that's a bit too old-school: I'm going to
assume Armstrong didn't pay Ferrari just to help him out with
his meth dosage.

I really think Armstrong psyched you out. He has you right
where he wants his rivals - obsessed with the possibly-mythical
"**** That Will Kill Them," like Bartali sneaking after Coppi
to pick up his empty bottle and have it analyzed. When Bartali
found it was only water, that did worse for his morale than if
it had been any magic potion.

"Maximillian Leon III" wrote in message
news:UQXHe.168417$go.39615@fed1read05...
Please put responses on the top of previous posts. It's hard to scroll
down and is bad etiquet.

You've got that backwards. Top posting is bad etiquet.

Phil H


wrote in message
oups.com...
B. Lafferty wrote:
"Philip Holman" wrote in message
"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
"Philip Holman" wrote in message
"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
"Philip Holman" wrote in message

Very old news. Oxygen uptake is the key. Can the cadence exhibited
by
Armstrong be sustained at 480+ watts average on a 30 min+ climb with
the
VO2Max that Armstrong has (82 or 83). Vayer thinks not and I
suspect that
is why Coyle is postulating other explainations. Coyle has presented
a
hypothesis which he has failed to adequately test on his subject. As
we
know, VO2Max is not generally a good predictor of performance except
as to
climbing. (see, e.g. Baker, Arnie, Bicycling Medicine, p. 95, "The
test is a
better predictor of athletic performance in some circumstances than
in
others. Some athletic situations have very good correlations with
VO2max,
e.g. running and bicycling uphill; some don't")

You didn't get much out of Chung's plot, did you?
That is a bit more authoritative than some sloppy sentence
Arnie Baker tossed off. And cadence is a red herring,
cadence doesn't get you up hills, only power does.

Do you have any idea what form of doping or other cheating
would increase efficiency (defined here as power over oxygen
uptake)? This is a sincere question. Modern forms of doping
like EPO have concentrated on increasing oxygen capacity
through increasing hematocrit, not increasing efficiency.
I suppose amphetamines or pot belge could give an athlete a
temporary boost, but that's a bit too old-school: I'm going to
assume Armstrong didn't pay Ferrari just to help him out with
his meth dosage.

I really think Armstrong psyched you out. He has you right
where he wants his rivals - obsessed with the possibly-mythical
"**** That Will Kill Them," like Bartali sneaking after Coppi
to pick up his empty bottle and have it analyzed. When Bartali
found it was only water, that did worse for his morale than if
it had been any magic potion.

On 08/03/2005 12:24 AM, in article ,
"Philip Holman" wrote:


"Maximillian Leon III" wrote in message
news:UQXHe.168417$go.39615@fed1read05...
Please put responses on the top of previous posts. It's hard to scroll
I think we should ...
down and is bad etiquet.
.... start mid-posting.
You've got that backwards. Top posting is bad etiquet.
Because that would make the most sense.
Phil H
And no paragraph breaks either, to make it really easy to pick out the new
comments from the old.


--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [foreword] slash

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 11:06:03 GMT, "Steven L. Sheffield"
wrote:
On 08/03/2005 12:24 AM, in article ,
"Philip Holman" wrote:


"Maximillian Leon III" wrote in message
news:UQXHe.168417$go.39615@fed1read05...
Please put responses on the top of previous posts. It's hard to
scroll
I think we should ...
down and is bad etiquet.
.... start mid-posting.
You've got that backwards. Top posting is bad etiquet.
Because that would make the most sense.
Phil H
And no paragraph breaks either, to make it really easy to pick out the
new
comments from the old.
You can also remove whatever differentiates the old from the new in
your reader and make it just that much more fun.

wrote in message
oups.com...
B. Lafferty wrote:
"Philip Holman" wrote in message
"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
"Philip Holman" wrote in message
"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
"Philip Holman" wrote in message

Very old news. Oxygen uptake is the key. Can the cadence exhibited by
Armstrong be sustained at 480+ watts average on a 30 min+ climb with the
VO2Max that Armstrong has (82 or 83). Vayer thinks not and I suspect
that
is why Coyle is postulating other explainations. Coyle has presented a
hypothesis which he has failed to adequately test on his subject. As we
know, VO2Max is not generally a good predictor of performance except as
to
climbing. (see, e.g. Baker, Arnie, Bicycling Medicine, p. 95, "The test
is a
better predictor of athletic performance in some circumstances than in
others. Some athletic situations have very good correlations with VO2max,
e.g. running and bicycling uphill; some don't")

You didn't get much out of Chung's plot, did you?
That is a bit more authoritative than some sloppy sentence
Arnie Baker tossed off. And cadence is a red herring,
cadence doesn't get you up hills, only power does.

Other than criticising Baker's syntax, you do agree that there is a good
correlation between VO2Max and climbing, don't you? Are you saying that
cadence doesn't relate to power output and efficiency? Are you saying that
increased cadence doen't require increased O2 uptake?

Do you have any idea what form of doping or other cheating
would increase efficiency (defined here as power over oxygen
uptake)? This is a sincere question. Modern forms of doping
like EPO have concentrated on increasing oxygen capacity
through increasing hematocrit, not increasing efficiency.

Are you saying that a rider will not be aided in climbing with more
sustainable power by using EPO? How about autologous blood boosting?

I suppose amphetamines or pot belge could give an athlete a
temporary boost, but that's a bit too old-school: I'm going to
assume Armstrong didn't pay Ferrari just to help him out with
his meth dosage.

Did you really read this again before posting?


I really think Armstrong psyched you out. He has you right
where he wants his rivals - obsessed with the possibly-mythical
"**** That Will Kill Them," like Bartali sneaking after Coppi
to pick up his empty bottle and have it analyzed. When Bartali
found it was only water, that did worse for his morale than if
it had been any magic potion.


Hardly. It isn't just Armstrong, as Vayer points out. The same questions
also apply to Ullrich, Pantani, Indurain, Virenque and a number of other
riders putting out sustained climbing wattages of 400+.

So Bartali was looking for EPO?? Who would have known he was so far ahead
of his time? ;-)

On 08/03/2005 05:42 AM, in article
, "D. Ferguson"
wrote:

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 11:06:03 GMT, "Steven L. Sheffield"
wrote:
On 08/03/2005 12:24 AM, in article ,
"Philip Holman" wrote:


"Maximillian Leon III" wrote in message
news:UQXHe.168417$go.39615@fed1read05...
Please put resp
onses on the top of pre
vious posts. It's hard to
scroll
I think we should ...
down and is bad etiquet.
.... start mid-posting.

You've got th
at backwards. Top pos
ting is bad etiquet.
Because that wo
uld make the most sense.
Phil H
NOT TO MEN
TION RANDO
M LINEBR
EAKS IN THE MID
DLE OF WORDS
And no paragr
aph breaks either, to make it really ea
sy to pick out the
new
comments from the old.
You can also remove what
ever differen
tiates the old from the new in
your reader and ma
ke it just that much more fun.

--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [foreword] slash

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 12:06:09 GMT, "Steven L. Sheffield"
wrote:

On 08/03/2005 05:42 AM, in article
, "D. Ferguson"
wrote:

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 11:06:03 GMT, "Steven L. Sheffield"
wrote:
On 08/03/2005 12:24 AM, in article ,
"Philip Holman" wrote:


"Maximillian Leon III" wrote in message
news:UQXHe.168417$go.39615@fed1read05...
Pleaseputresponsesonthetopofpreviousposts. It'shard oscroll thinkwe
should ...downandisbadetiquet....startmid-posting.You'vegot
thatbackwards. Toppostingisbadetiquet.Becausethatwouldmakethemost
sense.Phil HNOTTOMENTIONRANDOMLINEBREgoodcall,but i think we
sh**ldasloleaveoutrandomlet*ers andsometimesforget tohave
spacesbetweenwords.occasional backwards spell*ng is osla
encouraged.AKSINTHEMIDDLEOFWORDSAndno
paragraphbreakseither,tomakeitreallyeasytopickoutt henewcomments rom
theoldYoucanalso emovewhateverdifferentiatestheoldfromthenewinyour
readerandmakeitjustthatmuchmorefun.

"D. Ferguson" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 12:06:09 GMT, "Steven L. Sheffield"
wrote:

On 08/03/2005 05:42 AM, in article
, "D. Ferguson"
wrote:

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 11:06:03 GMT, "Steven L. Sheffield"
wrote:
On 08/03/2005 12:24 AM, in article ,
"Philip Holman" wrote:


"Maximillian Leon III" wrote in message
news:UQXHe.168417$go.39615@fed1read05...
Pleaseputresponsesonthetopofpreviousposts. It'shard oscroll thinkwe
should ...downandisbadetiquet....startmid-posting.You'vegot
thatbackwards. Toppostingisbadetiquet.Becausethatwouldmakethemost
sense.Phil HNOTTOMENTIONRANDOMLINEBREgoodcall,but i think we
sh**ldasloleaveoutrandomlet*ers andsometimesforget tohave
spacesbetweenwords.occasional backwards spell*ng is osla
encouraged.AKSINTHEMIDDLEOFWORDSAndno
paragraphbreakseither,tomakeitreallyeasytopickoutt henewcomments rom
theoldYoucanalso emovewhateverdifferentiatestheoldfromthenewinyour
readerandmakeitjustthatmuchmorefun.

And I thought I had too much time on my hands. :-)

"David Ferguson" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 12:50:14 GMT, "B. Lafferty"
wrote:


"D. Ferguson" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 12:06:09 GMT, "Steven L. Sheffield"
wrote:

On 08/03/2005 05:42 AM, in article
, "D. Ferguson"
wrote:

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 11:06:03 GMT, "Steven L. Sheffield"
wrote:
On 08/03/2005 12:24 AM, in article ,
"Philip Holman" wrote:


"Maximillian Leon III" wrote in message
news:UQXHe.168417$go.39615@fed1read05...
Pleaseputresponsesonthetopofpreviousposts. It'shard oscroll thinkwe
should ...downandisbadetiquet....startmid-posting.You'vegot
thatbackwards. Toppostingisbadetiquet.Becausethatwouldmakethemost
sense.Phil HNOTTOMENTIONRANDOMLINEBREgoodcall,but i think we
sh**ldasloleaveoutrandomlet*ers andsometimesforget tohave
spacesbetweenwords.occasional backwards spell*ng is osla
encouraged.AKSINTHEMIDDLEOFWORDSAndno
paragraphbreakseither,tomakeitreallyeasytopickoutt henewcomments rom
theoldYoucanalso emovewhateverdifferentiatestheoldfromthenewinyour
readerandmakeitjustthatmuchmorefun.

And I thought I had too much time on my hands. :-)



I didn't know you did much thinking. I didn't know you were aware that
you have too much time on your hands. I didn't know you posted in
threads that weren't about Armstrong or doping.

Learn something new every day.

And if you must know, I had extra time this morning because my wife is
doing the "drop off" of our kids to my parents house for the day.
Whereas I am usually the one.

And that you have an impaired sense of humor.