Posted without comment: http://www.theatlantic.com/...ar-pistorius/273248/

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

People wonder why Lance keeps trying to force himself back into the public eye, it is because of people like this. So what if the vast majority of the public find him distasteful there will always be a small group of suckers who will parrot his latest talking points like "Level Playing field" "Witch Hunt" and attack anyone who told the truth because telling the truth sucks

Lance Armstrong, hero of the stupid.

Compared to the average person he had a big engine, compare to the average Pro Cyclist his engine was average.

Lance was a chemical invention. Doping since he was a teenager.

What is your personal stake in the doping discussion and especially the lance issue?

How do you know his engine was average? Other than V02 max, which is only one part of what determines performance, what else about his engine was average?

It has often been reported that Armstrong's Vo2 was 85......but this is a lie. This was an estimate made by Coyle in his fraudulent study. It was only an estimate that he invented and is not based on reality.

The reality is Coyle measured Armstrong's Vo2 at 71.5 in 1999 Below average for a Pro

Here are a few links

http://sportsscientists.com/2008/09/coyle-and-armstrong-research-errors-evaluation/
http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/44515073607/laboratory-measures-of-the-subject-in-our-study
http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/R077.pdf


Armstrong always was a chemical invention.

Clearly, everyone faster than me is on the Juice. I'm so slow I MUST be clean.

Just give me Lance's 7 Tdf Victories and we can all move on to the next topic :-)

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

Interesting article Jordan. Thanks.

This could be extended into many areas...great actors, comedians that rhyme with Rosby, politicians etc. There are many people that achieve greatness at a huge cost to a general sense of morals. I think a good example could be Arnold Schwarzenegger. He achievements are even more remarkable than Lance's in my opinion. If you read about him, you find that he has plenty of demons. He had goals and nothing would stand in his way to achieve those goals...even when there was human consequence. Here is an interesting piece from wikipedia on Arnold and is just one of many..."Arnold Schwarzenegger, stated in the film Pumping Iron that he did not attend his father's funeral, but later retracted this, explaining that it was a story he had appropriated from a boxer to make it appear as though he could prevent his personal life from interfering with his athletic training." Amazing.

One thing that does trouble me though is when people provide a platform to these damaged individuals after it is public how destructive they are. I don't get it. Please don't take this as a poke at you because I am truly trying to understand the behaviour, but I still cannot understand why you would get together with Lance after all the facts are known about him. Surely it must be self serving. Yes, people can be forgiven, but by the people they hurt. What was your skin in the game?

---

________________
Adrian in Vancouver

This is the latest revisionism by those who are butthurt and embarrassed they were unable to see the obvious. If LA was such a chump and could beat everyone else, all of whom were doping, for seven years straight then think how worthless all those other riders must have been. Without PEDs they must have gotten winded climbing out of bed.

See the obvious? I knew Lance was doping in 1989.

Everyone knew the score in the 90's/00's. whoever responded best to the dope of the day, got the best doctors, and paid off the UCI to look the other way won. Lance did all three. Now he is trying to rally a new group of fools to believe his lies. It appears he will have some success....and it will be fun to watch as he lets them down again

Didn't you chastise me for the last time I tried to explain myself on this? :P

If you are asking non-rhetorically, I'll give as best an answer as I can.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Yes, his VO2 max is below average, but that is only part of what makes an engine.

Agreed. Large amount of drugs, Super response to those drugs, expert guidance from the best doctor, and protection from the UCI played a key roll in transforming a guy who could not finish the Tour into a 7 time loser

so you obviously must theorize that he was doping in high school, as he beat a number of pro triathletes then. Get real.

Rick Crawford started coaching Lance Armstrong at age 15. Google him.

these people are called "sociopaths"

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

He was doping as a teenager.


Lance is a very talent athlete. It is no surprised he was able to succeed in a small, 3rd tier, sport like Tri's were at the time.


Here are some of his early blood and performance test results


http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/C118.pdf


80 Vo2 is very solid.......but 7 x Tour de France winner? No way. his threshold of 75% and the corresponding watts (340-350) were sub par. The testers even noted that he would need about 400 watts to compete at his level in TT. they called it an area to develop. Explosiveness as well.


His Hct was at 49%.....at 19. That is crazy high considering his off season bio passport numbers from 09 had him at 39. Armstrong's triglycerides and total cholesterol were super high high. Bad immune system (abnormally low neutrophils and abnormally high lymphocytes) Strong indicators of Testosterone, steroid, and Cortisone use.


He was a charger from the early days. Chemical invention.

Who are you and what are your sources? You seem to have a lot of 'info' on the topic.

Ahh, the old "super dope" and super responder fantasy. In the 00s bunch of the conspiracy types convinced themselves LA must be on super dope. They spun all sorts of crackpot theories about links between pharma companies, Thom Weisel, and LA, saying that LA must be using experimental drugs that no else had access to. Of course it all turned out to be bullshit. LA was using the standard stuff that everyone else was using: A little anabolics and EPO/transfusions. In fact the evidence shows that LA and his team were using less than other teams. While Kelme was shooting its riders up with a laundry list of drugs that was two feet long, LA and co were using as little as possible. In fact they threw doping resources away when races were well in hand. And they targeted only a few races instead of being full on for the entire season.

Similarly, the conspiracy theorists stories about an exclusive relationship between LA and the UCI turned out to be bunk. Funny how conspiracy theories end that way. Geert Lienders, dope doctor to Rabobank and Sky, was getting special treatment for his riders from the UCI.

(Sorry about inferring above that Lienders was a dope doctor when he worked for Sky. The official story is that Sky hired a renowned dope doctor to treat saddle sores. I am sure it is true. I would never doubt the transformation of riders at Sky into riders who can climb as fast as LA. No one else should either. It is a new era afterall.)

Heck, you cannot even settle on what you think LA's VO2Max is. Sometimes it is barely over 70 and then it is 80. The standard figure is 82 to 85 but LA was not exactly known for diligent training back in the day. He used to brag that he was a training zero but a race hero. He was like a smart kid who barely studies but still aces all his tests. He was not exactly emaciated either.

Sounds like someone has been hitting the Betsy-Race Radio Haterade a bit too much. I am envisioning a wall covered with pics of LA and old news clippings, like something a stalker would have.

"these people are called "sociopaths" "
--------------------
Perhaps we all have a touch of this. We have to be honest when we look in the mirror. I think the challenge is to realize these tenancies and keep it under control. It's tough being human.

---

David
* Ironman for Life! (Blog) * IM Everyday Hero Video * Daggett Shuler Law *
Disclaimer: I have personal and professional relationships with many athletes, vendors, and organizations in the triathlon world.

"So maybe we shouldn't be so shocked. But we are. Because we don't want to look at the complexity or costs of achievement. We want to paint our heroes pure, so we can indulge in our happy-fantasy hero-worship without having to feel queasy about it."

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank

Sweeping it under the carpet? You must be usain in the membrane if you believe that.

---

29 years and counting

What I think he's getting at is that if, for example, someone has a Hct of 35 clean and gets it up to 49 he will gain a lot more than someone who is naturally at say 45 and gets it up to 49. Same is true for a lot of other substances so some athletes might gain a lot more from a doping program than others as you can only push the levels so high. That's why someone of less natural talent but with high potential to improve with drugs could potentially dominate in that environment but not as much in a clean one. It's not necessarily about special drugs.

---

---

BA coaching http://www.bjornandersson.se

Regardless of your Lance position, Lava is trying to sell magazines.

Wow, that is impressive amount of Bullshort! Did you invent that all yourself or was it in the latest "Armstrong Apologist" Newsletter?

I never mentioned Weisel and Pharma companies, not sure what you are babbling about. It is clear that USPS more advanced that other teams and they took greater risk

The retro testing shows that USPS was willing to take risks other teams were not. In 1999 teams and riders were scared of getting caught with EPO in France. They all showed up "Glowing" but few took that risk during the Tour.The retro testing supports this. In the 83 samples tested after the Prologue there were only 9 positive for EPO and 5 belonged to Armstrong Compare that to 1998 where there were 32 positive/questionable samples. It is clear that there was a huge reduction in the use of EPO, except for one team who had a Motoman to bring them drugs


In 2000 Ferrari got inside info on the new EPO test and develop a transfusion program for 3 riders on USPS. What other teams did transfusions in 2000? None

• Boogerd was the first on Rabo to do a transfusion, He did it in 2002. Rassmussen and a few others started in 2003.
• Telekom explored transfusions but felt they were too risky. They finally started in 2004.
• Ullrich start transfusions in 2003
• Manzano said Kelme started transfusions in 2003

Equating Leinders with the level of protection Lance had is so ridiculous even lance would laugh at it

• Weisel and Och worked as money managers for Hein Verbuggen
• Lance had advanced notice of surprise testing
• Lance had multiple questionable EPO tests were ignore. Multiple positives for Test and Cortisone in the 90's were ignore
• Lance and Hein verbruggen formed a company to buy the Tour together. How many people did billion dollar deals with the head of the UCI?
• When the retro testing of the 99 samples proved Armstrong was using EPO Armstrong gave the UCI $100,000 to pay for Virjman report, which was written by Armstrong's agent Bill Stapleton

Armstrong' Vo2 was never 85. The highest measured was 81 when he was clearly juicing. Most of the tests had him in the low to mid 70's. Nothing impressive. Many Pro teams will have a entire Tour squad that averages in the high 70's.


Armstrong was a chemical invention who could not finish a Tour before he met Ferrari.