Lance Armstrong... greatest doper there was or ever will be

^^ go and have a look on youtube at the footage of Lance laying into Kimmage (with Hincapie sat next to him). Kimmage was an almost lone voice but with nothing but good intentions and disgust for the hypocrisy.

Lance is not the victim here. He's the cnut.

Also, your glasses sound rubbish.

Just actually felt a little pity for LA for a moment. I think I must be hormonal.

Sentimentality for a fallen hero can GTFO. You all need testosterone injections.

"Where he has found the strength from I just do not know."

Seriously, nothing in this display to give you any hints then, Phil?

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6DmNMGEuI0"]Lance
Armstrong-Hautacam Attack - YouTube[/ame]

that clip just makes it soooo obvious in hindsight. Best climber of his generation being swept away by a monotesticular texan with his veins choc full of poe.

no wonder he got depressed and topped himself. Armstrong to be tried for manslaughter next please!

What on earth do you think was propelling Pantani? His haematocrit was 60% when he crashed in Milan-Turin.

As the thread title says, Armstrong was def the best doper of his generation.

In a scandal someone always pays, and it makes a refreshing change for it to be the deserving top-dog in this case. Too often it's a minor character, or a choad as Lance would have it.

His fall is so huge as his false prophecy was so huge - but he perpetuated it. He placed himself at the top of the doping pile. There's no simpler way of saying it, but all of this is his own fault. Had he not wanted to be a martyr he shouldn't have set out to be one.

+1

There is no doubt that there is an uncritical reception at the moment. Both the performance level and the PR and rhetoric of Sky need to be examined closely, but it hasn't happened because they are British.

I think there's an element of disingenuity comparing Sky to USPS. Certainly Sky set out to copy their tactics with a team-wide show of strength, but at markedy lower levels of performance to USPS. Every sports-scientist I have seen comment find nothing alarming in Sky's performance in 2012.

I think Sky have made glaring errors, and I guess the reasons for this is down to one's own personal opinion. But I will say this: if Sky wanted to paint a target on themselves they could have done it any better by their actions: Leinders and Yates were two massive mistakes. Training in Tenerife is another. Rogers a step further since he trained with Ferrari.

But I would mitigate the above by saying that if you were doping and wanted to avoid people thinking you were, you would have done none of the above and played the whole game much cleverer. People want to spin Brailsford as some sort of PR genius, but I say he's been fucking stupid ever since the inception of Sky. Arrogant and presumptious first, then an underhand backtrack. To talk of 'zero-tolerance' then hire staff and riders that have worked with Lance (Yates, Barry and Julich) and take on an implicated doctor, just ridiculously stupid. The knives are out for Sky because of the Murdoch connection anyway, brazen and rich new boys on the block. They have backed up those early claims now but in the process have left themselves open to a damning analysis.

But I believe they are clean, certainly from a USPS-style team-wide doping programme. I have doubts over certain riders but not over the team as a whole. Their domination can be viewed one way easily, but another can see them as racing in a much cleaner peloton (Ferrari said in 2010 you would be crazy to using EPO) with a very scientific, professional approach to training (it was interesting to read Steve Cuimmings summarise his experience of Sky and BMC, where he said the latter more like a family and forgiving, where in Sky it was all about the numbers you were producing).

Apol's for the derail but...

...why do previous generations of riders (like those shown above) often have such low cadence? Is training for higher cadence a relatively new thing?

No 110 bcd cranks available?

EPO fuelled I reckon, push a higher gear than idea.

The other theories is merely personal choice, Armstrong push a higher RPM whether Ullrich is much lower.

I was partly joking there and also have no illusions about Pantani doping too, but looking at it as an arms-race scenario:

if you're taking two people who want to win, and put them in a situation where know that they other guy is using so you need to take drugs to do it, then the one-upmanship will inevitably lead to fucking ridiculous scenes like Hautacam and total abuse of substances to attain a margin of advantage and maintain it.

It's clear how professionalised USPS's doping system was-if Pantani (and I'm pretty sure he was a naturally far better climber than Armstrong) had to compete with that-for the team, for the sponsors, for himself-then what do you need to do to actually win something?

Not saying Pantani is a saint at all but look what he was up against and it seems he didn't have the mental strength to cope with the pressure of trying to compete in that system. This is what sharks like Ferrari need to be held accountable for in facilitating the doping to start off with.

Regarding cadence, it's probably no coincidence that Lance was a high school tap dance legend whereas Ulrich was raised, as was frequently the case in East German schools, on a regime of sumo wrestling and body popping.

Armstong was famously high cadence (like you say) but even he rode at a lower rpm than most of the modern riders.

Did a boffin just 'discover' at some point higher cadence works?

Was it you will?

Did a boffin just 'discover' at some point higher cadence works?

Quite possibly, like the myth behind skinner frimer tyres = faster.

Quite possibly, like the myth behind skinner frimer tyres = faster.

can we have a thread for this please. Sounds fucking riveting.

I don't think one have been made yet.

Will, speaking of un jour sans when was Brad's last one? The 2010 TDF I suppose.

Ha ha! SCA want their $7.5million back.

Paul Kimmage raging

http://soundcloud.com/off-the-ball/paul-kimmage-on-tonights-off

Ha ha! SCA want their $12 million and change back, probably with interest...

that's what their original settlement was with legal fees etc added in. oops.

what was he saying?