Lance Armstrong facing lifetime ban, loss of titles

Discussion in 'Anything Goes' started by Rubo, Aug 25, 2012.

  1. Rubo

    Rubo New Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2009
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Can Lance supporters explain this please.

    what Lance Armstrong did was impossible, or so improbable as to be virtually indistinguishable from impossible.

    Michele Ferrari, Armstrong’s old coach and one of the six defendants in the USADA action, is on the record as talking about the Texan being able to express a sustained power output of 6.7 watts per kilogram of body weight when he was winning the Tour.

    The late Aldo Sassi, who was respected as one of the best cycling coaches and whose reputation was spotless, concluded that a sustained 6.2 watts per kilo was probably the limit of human achievement under normal physiological conditions. Unpredictable variables, such as length of effort, would skew the numbers a little, but figures above 6 are freakish – the absolute limit of human achievement. 6.0 would win a Grand Tour these days (Sassi was quoted in the New York Times as saying that in the 2009 Giro, only one rider – Denis Menchov – got above six). 6.7 is impossible. It’s over 11 per cent more than 6.0, in an elite area of performance where the margins between riders are impossibly thin. It would be the equivalent of a long jumper jumping 9.93 metres (Mike Powell’s world record is 8.95 metres, and that was a pretty freakish jump).

    Armstrong rode up Alpe d’Huez in 37-36 in the 2004 Tour de France, one second behind Marco Pantani’s record (although there is debate about the measurements based on where the climb actually starts and finishes). The fastest time last year was 41-21, by Samuel Sanchez. That’s a difference of just under 10 per cent.


    It makes us feel good to ascribe superhuman abilities to humans, to believe that force of will can drive special individuals to incredible achievements. It’s different this time. Armstrong fed this myth, by claiming to train harder. His fans claimed that his battle with cancer gave him the mental fortitude to ride away from his rivals.

    But it’s a fairy tale. An individual with the right combination of genetic attributes and physiology might come along with an advantage of one or two per cent over the very best of his rivals. Five per cent? Human beings don’t work like that. 10 per cent or more? Sorry. You’re being lied to.

    And that brings us back to the telephone call I received in late November, 2008.

    Because I would like Lance Armstrong to answer his own question. How did he do what he did?

    The USADA action is important, no matter how many aggressively-worded letters Armstrong’s lawyers send out trying to persuade us of the contrary. The witness testimony may be enough to result in Armstrong being found guilty. But cycling has its first chance in a generation to come to terms with its past, not just brush it under the carpet.

    How did you do it, Lance?
     
  2. Rubo

    Rubo New Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2009
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The impossibility of the physiology

    From a scientific point of view, the case is strong. Without going into the technical details, it is possible to show conclusively that a human being, unaided, is incapable of producing more than about 6.2 watts per kilogram (W/kg) of power for a sustained period during cycling. It’s rather like if you were standing with a radar gun and a car drove by at 320 km/hour.

    That car would have to have a mighty powerful engine. If I told you it was a 1.3-litre engine, you’d challenge me. Similarly, physiology can show that cycling at higher than 6.2 W/kg at the end of a Tour stage simply should not happen.

    Armstrong often rode at 6.5 W/kg or higher, including one ride at 6.97 W/kg.

    This is simply not physiologically feasible.

    Interestingly, since the testing got more stringent in 2006, the power outputs have dropped, and this year, the best riders hardly ever rode above 6 W/kg. !!!Are the current crop just weak? I doubt it – more likely, the class of the 90s and 00s, Armstrong included, were performing above what is “possible”, thanks to doping. Again, all but Armstrong have been exposed or admitted to doping. (this is a very important point.Athletes during Lance era producing above 6 W/kg admitted doping.Notice how slow Tour is now.I guess Lance was from Mars superhuman in American comic style! :rolleyes:)

    Or take the comparison argument – if every other major champion has doped, and doping improves performance by between 2% and 5% , then is it credible that one man, without doping, has overcome that difference and still dominated? Sport simply does not work that way – the difference between the best and second best at the elite level is 0.5% to 1%, not 5% (even Usain Bolt is only 1% better than everyone else).

    The point is that evidence may be circumstantial, but it’s still worthy. And the insistence by many on a positive test result is meaningless. Remember, Marion Jones didn’t fail a drugs test, but she is an admitted doper.

    Dwain Chambers didn’t fail a test for years while doping. Jan Ullrich and Ivan Basso were exposed based on police work, not doping control.

    The argument that Armstrong is the most tested athlete ever but has never tested positive is an ignorant one, because doping is simply more sophisticated than detection.
     
  3. FJ12rydertoo

    FJ12rydertoo Member

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,195
    Likes Received:
    262
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Platte City, MO
    Map
    Why do you even bother to ask questions that you already think you know the answers to? What about the statement "This is simply not physiologically feasible." Excuse my ignorance, but doesn't that mean it is possible? Last time I checked "not feasible" was nowhere near "impossible" which is what you're saying.

    You ask Lance to replay to the question "How did you do it, Lance?" The problem is that you wont accept any answer but the one you want. The truth? Not really, just what you want to hear. He could tell the absolute truth and if it disagreed with what you already "know" as the truth, what then?

    It's a freaking witch hunt, pure and simple. Maybe they could use the ducking stool to determine his guilt or innocence. It would be as fair as anything the USADA has come up with so far.

    There is no fairness with the USADA since they refuse to accept their own evidence. They are reduced to second hand stories, and innuendo. Tygart needs to find a real job.
     
  4. chickunfut

    chickunfut New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ok it's friggin HOT Texas

    Holy crap ! That puts the entire thing into perspective,,,,,,,, Probably why UCI is not willing to take the titles from Lance.. They don't want to stir that pot. It would destroy the sport even more...

    Rubo, go smoke some weed, eat some cheetoes and chill out you friggin doper.....
     
  5. 34468 Randy

    34468 Randy Secret Insider

    Country:
    Mexico
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Messages:
    13,660
    Likes Received:
    1,513
    Trophy Points:
    158
    Location:
    Chilliwack, BC Canada
    Map
    BTW. What was he doping wiht....Slick 50?
     
  6. krazyderek

    krazyderek New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2012
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    +1 ..............
     
  7. Durk

    Durk New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2012
    Messages:
    408
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Everyone doped but the French government would never accept an American won their precious race 7 times. You don't see this witch hunt with French or European riders.
    Personally, he paid the price by getting cancer and beat it. He brought popularity to the sport of cycling and has raised millions for cancer. I don't blame him for throwing in the towel they would fight him to the grave. You still have to be an incredible athlete to win the Tour de France.
     
  8. Poligrafovich

    Poligrafovich New Member

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    SE Wisconsin
    Map
    This is great work by Inspector Ahab Javert Tygart. Next on the retroactive cosmic justice hit list: Eddy Merckx.
     
  9. professore

    professore New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2011
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Cork
    A couple of points on this - my 2c:

    1. What he did for cancer awareness and fundraising is truly admirable, regardless of anything else.
    2. I always found it suspicious that unlike his rivals at the time, he only competed in the Tour De France and not other big races like the Giro d'Italia. Always smelled a bit of giving him the chance to stock up on drugs during the year.
    3. It's a shame to see the question marks over him now, but he was competing in a sport riddled with steroids, just take a look at this: List of doping cases in cycling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, so you could make the case that he was the best - since his competitors were drug riddled too.
    4. I don't like to see the guy's reputation damaged, and certainly not because he's American, but it does look like he cheated.
     
  10. Poligrafovich

    Poligrafovich New Member

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    SE Wisconsin
    Map
    Cosmic purity aside, "cheating" is hard to nail down. IMO, the defacto rule in professional cycling has always been don't do anything detectable under the regimen under which you compete. LA competed by that rule and did it better than anybody else ever. Cheating means taking unfair advantage over those with whom you compete, and I see little evidence LA "cheated" in that sense. To retroactively apply a standard to one competitor to which his contemporaries, and indeed those who would inherit any stripped titles, were not subjected is as "unfair" as anything of which LA stands accused.

    Let's go back and retroactively purify pro cycling. It will be amusing when we find that that the TdF is the only major sporting event in history never to have been "fairly" won by anybody ever.
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2012
  11. Rubo

    Rubo New Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2009
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They are many but I will state one obvious Greg LeMond
    Never doped! and best American cyclist in my opinion.
     
  12. FJ12rydertoo

    FJ12rydertoo Member

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,195
    Likes Received:
    262
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Platte City, MO
    Map
    Considering your stance on Armstrong, how can you state Greg Lemond never cheated? Just because he never tested positive, and says he never cheated? Wow, that sure sounds like someone else we all know.

    Dig deep enough and you could probably find someone who says he cheated. What then?
     
  13. Rubo

    Rubo New Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2009
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Difference is with LA almost entire postal teammates doped and admitted doping.He had relations with Italian doping guru Michele Ferrari
    and finally if challenged Greg would not hesitate scrutiny.
    Difference is who says what.When your teammates accuse you it is serious.

    Point is clear read post number 7
     
  14. diVeFR

    diVeFR New Member

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    899
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Location:
    Spring, TX
    Map
    :deadhorse: <--------- is the reason why Lance is probably saying he is not cooperating. He will always be accused even though there is no physical proof. He is probably tired of all the BS.


    (No horses were harmed or given any steriods in this post.... No steriods were taken by the typer of this post :flex: (not that any of you can prove otherwise))
     
  15. FJ12rydertoo

    FJ12rydertoo Member

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,195
    Likes Received:
    262
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Platte City, MO
    Map
    I give up.

    "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts"
     
  16. Ghost_Rider

    Ghost_Rider Active Member

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    493
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    LA & Utah
    Map
    NO NO NO NO NO....we are NOT going to listen to reason here, we are going to have a "trial by media", we are going to ignore the facts, listen to the words of convicted liars, and crucify a man and run his name thru the mud just because we can...because it makes us feel better about ourselves that he is not as good as we thought he was. Kinda like "misery loves company."

    I think the name of this thread should be "I HATE LANCE ARMSTRONG SO MUCH I COULD SPIT!" I hate'em, I hate'em, I hate'em....go to heck Lance. Somebody get a rope quick...oh...looky here I found one! String'em boys!

    :hangme: :rip: :bs:
     
  17. Ghost_Rider

    Ghost_Rider Active Member

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    493
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    LA & Utah
    Map
    Stop trying to confuse us with FACTS man! He is guilty.....I don't care about he passing hundreds of tests....if the OP has a feeling, it must be true. Do not pass go go directly to jail!
     
  18. tinkerinWstuff

    tinkerinWstuff Administrator Staff Member

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Messages:
    7,826
    Likes Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    Colorado Front Range
    Map
    another vote for Lance. He's won the races and after facing mortality of cancer, who cares what people think of him? More important things in life to care about and he knows that no matter what he says, there will always be doubters.

    The word of a couple lying cheaters being used to count him guilty when he's been shown clean year after year....

    I say it was the CIA from the grassy knoll
    [​IMG]
     
  19. vfourbear

    vfourbear New Member

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    Messages:
    2,519
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Louisville, KY - Under my tinfoil hat
    Map
    I'm on performance enhancing drugs right now.
     
  20. Alaskan

    Alaskan Member

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,727
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    53
    Location:
    Alaska
    Map
    Amd then Tygart will investigate Babe Ruth for using a corked bat.


    The USADA is a travesty. Invalidating Armstrong's wins elevates known and proved dopers to the top of the podiums. Take 1999 for example. Alex Zulle - Alex Zulle - is the winner?!? Zulle is a proven doper. The irony is obvious.

    Then, let's look at other editions of the hallowed Tour. In 1996, Bjarne Riis won. Riis has admitted he doped that year, and said that if anyone wanted to take away his Maillot Jaune it was OK with him. He still has it in his drawer. Then there is 1998, when a juiced Marco Pantani "won" the Giro and the Tour. He is still listed as the winner of both.

    What interest is being served by digging all this up decades after the races? It is far better to note in the records that all these races were staged in the Doping Era and leave it at that.





    .
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2012
Related Topics

Share This Page