EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Off-Season Sports & The Lighter Side › General Sports › Armstrong is either super man or does drugs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Armstrong is either super man or does drugs

post #1 of 22
Thread Starter 
As much as I would like to believe that Lance Armstrong has won all his races by pure talent, it isn't a reasonable assesment. Anyone who knows a lot about the inside workings of professional cycling will tell you that. My ex-boyfriend was a on the US national team, he was in the level right below Lance and all those older guys. He was only 20. Anyways, one of his teammates was talking to a guy from the Lances team who was shocked when the younger guy told him that neither him or any of the younger team used any drugs to enhance their physical performance. Apparently drug use is quite common for many cyclists, not as much with the US team, but it is still possible. But basically Lance could not possibly be so good without drugs. One other interesting tidbit of information here, one of the common drugs used in Cycling increases cell division, that includes cancer cells. Interesting because Lance got cancer that multiplied strangely fast. It is sad that so many cyclists use drugs, because it makes it really hard to win big races without the help of drugs. So cyclists have to choose between staying clean and having more money and fame.

[ August 27, 2002, 01:43 AM: Message edited by: SkiBumChic ]
post #2 of 22
I can't know if Lance ever used drugs at the beginning of his career, but I don't see how he could get away with it now. He has got to be the most highly tested athlete in the world. I read in his book that he wouldn't even take allergy medication for fear of failing a drug test. As far as I know, he has never failed a drug test in his life. I also doubt that after almost dying from cancer that he would be willing to subject himself to that. All these preformance enhancing drugs are like making a deal with the devil; sooner or later the payback always comes due. I have also read that he was born with an extremely high heart/lung capacity, over twice that of an average person, as well as an unusually ability to tolerate physical stress better than most people, both of which would be a huge natural advantage in a bike race. Add that to the fact that he probably trains harder than anyone else and has surrounded himself with people that give him the best chance to win is probably the more likely explanation of his success. Or maybe that's what I'd rather believe. I know that there are a lot of people out there that would be disappointed if we ever find out anything any different.

[ August 27, 2002, 07:52 AM: Message edited by: Mac ]
post #3 of 22
Regarding the end of your first sentence, "it isn't a reasonable assessment," you're simply wrong; of course it is a reasonable assessment. Then, "anyone who knows a lot about the inside workings of professional cycling will tell you that." Wrong again. And what constitutes "a lot"? (Having a boyfriend on the U.S. Nat'l team?)
"Apparently drug use is quite common for many cyclists, not as much with the U.S. team, but it is still possible. But basically Lance could not possibly be so good without drugs."
No idea what prompted this but you need to do a lot more homework (and hone the rhetorical skills; if you really are trying to sway, you undermine your point all over the place) before you're so liberal with your accusations and theories.
"One of the common drugs used in cycling increases cell division, that includes cancer cells. Interesting because Lance got cancer that multiplied strangely fast."
Uh huh. And? So did my grandfather's, and he wasn't taking any performance-enhancing drugs.
If you know what you're talking about, you're hiding that fact and portraying the opposite. I have no issue with anyone voicing their opinions, but when you start dropping dumb bombs all over the place, I gotta ask you to think again, start over.

EDIT: otherwise, welcome to EpicSki!



[ August 27, 2002, 09:18 AM: Message edited by: ryan ]
post #4 of 22
I don't know if Armstrong uses drugs or not. I prefer to think he does not. The fact remains that someone has to be the best cyclist in the world, and that man right now is Lance Armstrong. Some people in his wake need to make excuses to justify that, apparently.
post #5 of 22
According to your thread title - "Armstrong is either super man or does drugs", we have a choice.

My vote is for superman.
post #6 of 22
I vote for superman as well. Your argument is based on groundless bits of information that come second hand with no physical proof
post #7 of 22
Quote:
one of the common drugs used in Cycling increases cell division
What drug are you refering to? EPO?

"It is sad that so many cyclists use drugs, because it makes it really hard to win big races without the help of drugs. So cyclists have to choose between staying clean and having more money and fame."

I think that today cykling is one of the "cleanest" sports, in the Tour de France they test on average 10 or so cyklists every day (if not more). This year, there was NOT ONE that tested positive!
post #8 of 22
[quote]Originally posted by Tele-Swede:
Quote:
..........

I think that today cykling is one of the "cleanest" sports, in the Tour de France they test on average 10 or so cyklists every day (if not more). This year, there was NOT ONE that tested positive!
I think that's a stretch. Historically, cycling has always been on the cutting edge of doping and performance enhancing drugs. Plenty of ways to get caught, but even more ways to avoid the tests which are inevitably years behind the doping practices.

Is Lance clean? Sure, I'll give him the presumption of innocence... However, I wouldn't be shocked if he's not. What's the cycling quote? Something about all the drugs in the world won't change a mule into racehorse.
post #9 of 22
Hey, SkiBumChic, who is your ex BF? Members of the national team used to come to San Diego for training every once in a while and I've ridden with them on many occasions.

Lance's current success is due to a number of factors: changes to his riding style, a team dedicated almost exclusively to his winning the Tour, losing about 15 lbs of upper body muscle.

Also, Lance possesses a set of qualities, such as willingness to train hard and fast, extreme confidence, attention to details, etc. that sets him apart from most of the peloton. Zabel and Cippolini share these attributes, but they're sprinters and will never win a stage race.
post #10 of 22
Quote:
Originally posted by ryan:
I have no issue with anyone voicing their opinions, but when you start dropping dumb bombs all over the place, I gotta ask you to think again, start over.

ditto. skibumchic needs to learn some rules of evidence before posting speculative crap like this.
post #11 of 22
If the guy was never tested - I might be suspicious too. But he has been tested more than any other single athelete in history.

Nearly dying, and then regaining ones health -- may well be a motivational tool that surpasses most of our experiences.

Therefore, compared to us . . . giving your biased choices. I say "Superman".

[ August 28, 2002, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: GravityGuru (Todd) ]
post #12 of 22
Tanglefoot:
Historically you're right, I remember a story my dad, and his dad, both cyclists, used to tell about a guy in the Tour in the -50 or 60ies who was on so much drugs he didn't feel how tired he was and fell asleep on his bike on a descent, he died....
But I admit, my statement was a stretch. :
post #13 of 22
Tara either is a bad fisherwoman or forgot to take her drugs.

_______________

Please, name your "ex-boyfriend" who was "one level below Lance and those guys."

Please, tell us why we should believe anything you say.

Please, all your trolls are belong to us. [img]tongue.gif[/img]
post #14 of 22
My exercise physiology professor this summer does a lot of work with professional cyclists, including some work with Lance. he says that after talking to other members of the USPS team he's convinced that Lance is either clean or the team members are extremely ignorant or the best liars in history. Of course go anywhere else in the world and everyone will tell you that Lance is dopped up.
post #15 of 22
I have heard that part of the reason that he does so well is because he races in only a select few races each year. He doesn't have to race evbery week or every two weeks to make enough money, his endorsements pay for it. He is able to train and avoid strength-draining, death rides (except for the big impotant ones like the tour de france) which allows him to maintain a much higher degree of constant strength than other racers.

Remember Jean claude Killy? Sweeper of Olympic Alpine skiing (all disciplines) in the '68 olympics who then retired for four years and came out of retirement in '72 with less than a month of training to WIN the World Cup? Men like Jean Claude Killy and Lance Armstrong are simply superior athletes.
post #16 of 22
have to jump in here after reading his book "It's Not About the Bike", I am definitely voting Superman. And I think if you read the book and got Lance's side of the story, you would think so, too. Any guy who can look Death in the face and bounce back like he did, not to mention win Tour de France AGAIN must be Superman!!
PS: Where's Tara to reply to all this??
post #17 of 22
didn't Miguel Indurain dominate cycling like Lance? I think so. Was he subjected to all this drug speculation? I don't think so. I wonder if there is some euros vs yanks chauvinism at work here???
post #18 of 22
Lance Armstrong and drugs, PLEASE.

Just read his book and you'll findout what makes him tick and perform the way he does.

Just being alive and determined. Once you die and come back to life, thats drug enough.

Love of life, and loving what you do is all the drug you need to succeed.

Richie F.
post #19 of 22
Rose colored glasses or not, I vote Superman.

Gee-willikers Tara, maybe Lance just has better drugs than the other guys; with all the money Lance makes, you know he can afford the best performance enhancing drugs.

Fish-on!!!
post #20 of 22
Quote:
Originally posted by SkiBumChic:
As much as I would like to believe that Lance Armstrong has won all his races by pure talent, it isn't a reasonable assesment. Anyone who knows a lot about the inside workings of professional cycling will tell you that. My ex-boyfriend was a on the US national team, he was in the level right below Lance and all those older guys. He was only 20. Anyways, one of his teammates was talking to a guy from the Lances team who was shocked when the younger guy told him that neither him or any of the younger team used any drugs to enhance their physical performance. Apparently drug use is quite common for many cyclists, not as much with the US team, but it is still possible. But basically Lance could not possibly be so good without drugs. One other interesting tidbit of information here, one of the common drugs used in Cycling increases cell division, that includes cancer cells. Interesting because Lance got cancer that multiplied strangely fast. It is sad that so many cyclists use drugs, because it makes it really hard to win big races without the help of drugs. So cyclists have to choose between staying clean and having more money and fame.
Tara:

You are an ASS. Without any evidence you tarnish the reputation of one of the worlds greatest athletes. I am somewhat offended that others like gonzostrike haven't called you up on the carpet before this point.

You rely on hearsay to establish your point? Your credibility with me is gone and will probably never return, regardless of the nickname you hide behind. We need fewer people like you gossiping about issues like this.

If you had approached the subject more generically I might have given you some slack, but you didn't. You are pathetic.

Mark
post #21 of 22
I must agree with MADDOG, I had posted earlier and forgotten about this whle post but I just re-read it whne I saw it bumped to the top adn was DISGUSTED that you (tara) woulduse lance's cancer which he beat (surely pointing towards being in excellent physical shape) as a sign of drug use.
post #22 of 22
I hate to bump this topic back to the top, but I need to add something medically.

I too read his book, and agree it is highly unlikely he is using drugs. To say that the cancer was advanced because of the drugs is ludicrous. His cancer was advanced as he IGNORED HIS SYMPTOMS! Denial is an ugly problem. That is where he was.

And which drug are you referring to that increases cell division? EPO increases red cell production and RBC production alone! It is recombinant for the actual hormone found in the body. It is a very clean drug as it hits its target and that target alone.

Hmmmm, very interesting that since you started this discussion Tara, you haven't been back!

Casey
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Sports
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Off-Season Sports & The Lighter Side › General Sports › Armstrong is either super man or does drugs