no winner for 1998 tour? how far back is far enough? - VeloNation - Cycling Forums, Bicycle Forums, Community Forums

Login

Home

News

Unanswered Active Topics

Forums Search

Forums > Road > The Dark Side

no winner for 1998 tour? how far back is far enough?

Last Post 07/31/2013 06:52 PM by Justin jmdirt. 54 Replies.

Sort:

Prev Next

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 4 of 4

Author

Messages

Entheo

Posts:317

07/26/2013 07:51 AM
Posted By Cosmic Kid on 07/25/2013 03:33 PM He was already doping before his cancer diagnosis. That's what I still don't get. he was doping beforeheand, but was never a GC threat in July. Post-Cancer - whole new ball game. I still want to know what changed and how the transformation occurred. Was the doping program better after '98, did they cahnge the regimen, was the "less upper body weight, same power myth actually / partially true, was it a more focused GT training program, etc. I think this is one of the great unanswered questions. based on my previous reconstruction of his doping timeline he had begun discussions with ferrari (intro via merckx if memory serves) but then the onset of cancer postponed deployment of a ferrari-guided program until after treatment. so i believe the difference -- as was the case with many riders (getting caught, too) -- was ferrari's system. he was the master of doping programs, and he charged accordingly. re: jmdirt's question "On a side note, is thee any scientific proof that LA's body responded to dope than other people or was that just something that a report threw out there and it stuck?" Again, if memory serves, hamilton's book talked about LA's natural hematocrit being lower than hamilton's, that the former was receiving more benefit accordingly.

jacques_anquetil

Posts:245

07/26/2013 09:37 AM
man, where is dark knight of the sole and lance's spear when you need them to contribute to the dialogue?

jmdirt

Posts:775

07/26/2013 10:16 AM
Entheo, OK he had more "room" to manipulate his hemo but did his body respond to dope better than other people (that is the claim).

Entheo

Posts:317

07/26/2013 10:29 AM
Posted By Justin jmdirt on 07/26/2013 10:16 AM Entheo, OK he had more "room" to manipulate his hemo but did his body respond to dope better than other people (that is the claim). well, based on his -7 TdF wins, i'd say yes!

jmdirt

Posts:775

07/26/2013 10:35 AM
I'm not sure how "scientific" that is but it is hard to argue with! ;]

Orange Crush

Posts:4499

07/26/2013 04:01 PM
Reasonably interesting little article in Volkskrant today about genetic doping, the fact that its ready for use (two variants at least), the degree to which the current clean(er) generation would be able to resist it or whether we'd be looking at another tsunami most likely, and what the authorities could do to control and guide its use (and to what degree it should/could be controllled). Lots of interesting questions. Meanwhile we're still pretending like its 1998.

jrt1045

Posts:363

07/26/2013 04:23 PM
Don't say it 3 times in a row, J_A as they will appear

Yo Mike

Posts:338

07/27/2013 09:51 AM
Genetic doping? I guess it was in the cards. Now that's sure to 'level the playing field' for rationalizing athletes everywhere. We had 'the Chicken'. Sooner or later, we'll have the 'Bar-headed Goose'. http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1673/3645?cited-by=yes&legid=royprsb;276/1673/3645 These birds migrate over the himalayan mountains. Look.....up in the Sky....

Orange Crush

Posts:4499

07/31/2013 01:03 PM
Uh oh http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ullrich-calls-for-restoration-of-armstrongs-tour-de-france-titles

jmdirt

Posts:775

07/31/2013 06:52 PM
I've said that all along. Just because LA was the best doper and the biggest ahole doesn't mean that he should be the only one removed from the lists. All or none.