julian D wrote:
Jctriguy wrote:
julian D wrote:
Yes, you did equate training with doping. Again, the topic is Lance's 7 Tours not his "win" at Flèche Wallon. Armstrong thinks everyone was doing the same thing he was doing. I have shown over and over that is a lie
Again, I equated the response to doping and training. Don't twist my words to suit your needs.
Thank you for identifying the only topic that is allowable in this thread. Now, the topic I responded to was in regards to the level playing field. You claim he had advantages over other dopers. That is obviously true, but doesn't mean the playing field wasn't level. In the big picture, all dopers were doing the same thing as lance, they were willingly cheating. The cheated the clean riders, not the other dopers. Do you think Ullrich was cheated out of your wins by lance?
Oh brother.....equating the response to doping to the response to training is ridiculous. If you find a training method that gives a seasoned Pro as massive a difference in response as Oxygen vector doping please let us know.
What aren't you understanding here. People talk about Lance responding to doping better than other cyclists. His natural % was in the low 40's instead of high 40's, etc etc. I'm talking about the individual's response to doping. People respond differently. Some are very trainable and others aren't. Some respond to drugs with huge improvements and others don't. Understand now? Point is that the response to training or doping is an inherent trait of each individual athlete.
Edit: I would agree that most of the people who don't respond to training are likely never going to make event the top amateur levels.