rec.bicycles.racing
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing?hl=enrec.bicycles.racing@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Hey Laff - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/aa961c3e7dc8980f?hl=en
* The French Surrender Again - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/4b837ae7abe0cd17?hl=en
* The Philosophy of Faith versus Science – Lance and PEDs - 4 messages, 4
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/ba36316b5f828f68?hl=en
* Vayer again - 18 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/5e9bb96d4d42ed31?hl=en
* TdF Stage 3 - Risk to Contador? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/17379c8d766113ba?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Hey Laff
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/aa961c3e7dc8980f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jul 1 2010 1:21 pm
From: "K. Fred Gauss"
On 07/01/2010 08:51 AM, Fred Flintstein wrote:
> Evil makes you stronger.
>
> http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/04/strength-in-naughty-or-nice/
Dumbass,
I already knew Laff was superhuman.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: The French Surrender Again
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/4b837ae7abe0cd17?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jul 1 2010 1:26 pm
From: "Fred Gringioni"
"Fredmaster of Brainerd" <bjweiner@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:480a49e4-c488-4b0f-8198-eb724ec9b1aa@d16g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
:: When I was about 12 or so I played on a club soccer
:: team (I was terrible BTW) and we used to take a van
:: out to the burbs to play middle school teams, I think
:: because there weren't other clubs of kids that age
:: for us to play in the city, a city of about 400K people.
:: That's one reason that US soccer sucked, and still
:: kinda sucks. No pipeline.
Dumbass -
There's definitely a pipeline now - they're just not yet old enough to make
an impact at the World Cup level.
thanks,
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Philosophy of Faith versus Science – Lance and PEDs
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/ba36316b5f828f68?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Jul 1 2010 1:42 pm
From: DA74
On Jul 1, 11:18 am, Frederick the Great <los...@the.movies> wrote:
> In article
> <4ec1e782-00b6-47c8-a7f4-7e94f4185...@z34g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
> Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Phil - the 'faith based' are all on the "Lance is clean" camp. He has
> > tested positive for both 'at that time' and retroactive tests.
>
> > Those irrefutable facts, by themselves, make the "Lance is clean" camp
> > less about faith and more about denial and delusion.
>
> > As an agnostic non-theist (the only rational POV IMHO) I have no
> > problem admitting that "I don't know" or "can't know" when it comes to
> > a higher power.
>
> > However, when it comes to the Bible and Lance Armstrong, I can
> > unequivocally say that they are both full of shit and regurgitate a
> > constant stream of lies and only self-deceiving fools and the mentally
> > and morally weak believe in them.
>
> Ever notice how the anti-religious are humorless
> absolutists hunting for people to incinerate?
>
> --
> Old Fritz
Ever notice how the religious have successfully incinerated those who
dare ask questions throughout the centuries?
1200s: Christians burned the Waldenses heretics for questioning
ecclessiastical power
1300s: Christians burned the Jews of Cologne whom they blamed for the
Black Death (when in actuality it was the Christian's burning of the
"evil" cats that let rats proliferate and spread the plague. Ain't
irony great?)
1400s: Christians burned John Huss of Bohemia for talking about
corruption of the popes
1500s: Savonarola, Christian bookburner extraordinaire is himself
burned at the stake for critisizing the pope
1600s: John Calvin orders Dr. Servetus burned at the stake for
critisizing the holy trinity and infant baptism...
...and on and on and on....
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Jul 1 2010 2:09 pm
From: Frederick the Great
In article
<4cd0e0b3-e8ad-48d4-9234-6331125fcbe6@k14g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
DA74 <davidastor74@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 1, 11:18 am, Frederick the Great <los...@the.movies> wrote:
> > In article
> > <4ec1e782-00b6-47c8-a7f4-7e94f4185...@z34g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
> > Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Phil - the 'faith based' are all on the "Lance is clean" camp. He has
> > > tested positive for both 'at that time' and retroactive tests.
> >
> > > Those irrefutable facts, by themselves, make the "Lance is clean" camp
> > > less about faith and more about denial and delusion.
> >
> > > As an agnostic non-theist (the only rational POV IMHO) I have no
> > > problem admitting that "I don't know" or "can't know" when it comes to
> > > a higher power.
> >
> > > However, when it comes to the Bible and Lance Armstrong, I can
> > > unequivocally say that they are both full of shit and regurgitate a
> > > constant stream of lies and only self-deceiving fools and the mentally
> > > and morally weak believe in them.
> >
> > Ever notice how the anti-religious are humorless
> > absolutists hunting for people to incinerate?
>
> Ever notice how the religious have successfully incinerated those who
> dare ask questions throughout the centuries?
Well spotted! I made an oblique reference to
religious persecutions, and you picked out in a trice.
--
Old Fritz
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Jul 1 2010 2:13 pm
From: Michael Press
In article
<2b04128f-4282-4dea-8189-ea2519191c98@x2g2000prk.googlegroups.com>,
Anton Berlin <truth_88888@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 1, 1:18 pm, Frederick the Great <los...@the.movies> wrote:
> > In article
> > <4ec1e782-00b6-47c8-a7f4-7e94f4185...@z34g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
> > Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Phil - the 'faith based' are all on the "Lance is clean" camp. He has
> > > tested positive for both 'at that time' and retroactive tests.
> >
> > > Those irrefutable facts, by themselves, make the "Lance is clean" camp
> > > less about faith and more about denial and delusion.
> >
> > > As an agnostic non-theist (the only rational POV IMHO) I have no
> > > problem admitting that "I don't know" or "can't know" when it comes to
> > > a higher power.
> >
> > > However, when it comes to the Bible and Lance Armstrong, I can
> > > unequivocally say that they are both full of shit and regurgitate a
> > > constant stream of lies and only self-deceiving fools and the mentally
> > > and morally weak believe in them.
> >
> > Ever notice how the anti-religious are humorless
> > absolutists hunting for people to incinerate?
>
> What's funny about any of the top 10 atrocities (as an example)
> performed and or hidden under the Vatican's watch?
Are you going for body count?
Can we settle this with numbers?
Add them up.
Anti-religious Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili
Anti-religious Mao Tse Tung
Anti-religious Adolf Hitler
I win.
--
Michael Press
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Jul 1 2010 3:45 pm
From: Ningi
On 01/07/2010 22:13, Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <2b04128f-4282-4dea-8189-ea2519191c98@x2g2000prk.googlegroups.com>,
> Anton Berlin<truth_88888@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 1, 1:18 pm, Frederick the Great<los...@the.movies> wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <4ec1e782-00b6-47c8-a7f4-7e94f4185...@z34g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Anton Berlin<truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Phil - the 'faith based' are all on the "Lance is clean" camp. He has
>>>> tested positive for both 'at that time' and retroactive tests.
>>>
>>>> Those irrefutable facts, by themselves, make the "Lance is clean" camp
>>>> less about faith and more about denial and delusion.
>>>
>>>> As an agnostic non-theist (the only rational POV IMHO) I have no
>>>> problem admitting that "I don't know" or "can't know" when it comes to
>>>> a higher power.
>>>
>>>> However, when it comes to the Bible and Lance Armstrong, I can
>>>> unequivocally say that they are both full of shit and regurgitate a
>>>> constant stream of lies and only self-deceiving fools and the mentally
>>>> and morally weak believe in them.
>>>
>>> Ever notice how the anti-religious are humorless
>>> absolutists hunting for people to incinerate?
>>
>> What's funny about any of the top 10 atrocities (as an example)
>> performed and or hidden under the Vatican's watch?
>
> Are you going for body count?
> Can we settle this with numbers?
> Add them up.
>
> Anti-religious Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili
> Anti-religious Mao Tse Tung
> Anti-religious Adolf Hitler
>
> I win.
>
You appear confused about Hitler.
That's a polite way of saying you are wrong.
Pete
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Vayer again
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/5e9bb96d4d42ed31?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 18 ==
Date: Thurs, Jul 1 2010 2:24 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"
On 7/1/2010 12:46 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
> On Jul 1, 8:54 am, Fred Flintstein<bob.schwa...@sbcREMOVEglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> Jesus Fucking Christ. I wonder if he's got his math
>> figured out yet?
>>
>> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727673.900-superhuman-perform...
>>
>> Fred Flintstein
>
> I think it's cool, because the way I read this paragraph:
>
> "In one study of 11 world-class cyclists, the highest VO2 max was 82.5
> ml/kg/min (Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, vol 34, p
> 2079). Levels above 85 ml/kg/min are "very rare", says Ross Tucker at
> the University of Cape Town in South Africa. Olaf Schumacher at the
> University of Freiburg in Germany agrees, saying that values above
> this for cyclists are "definitely very high" and beyond what he feels
> is "natural"."
>
> .... it means that Greg Lemond, with a self-acknowledged VO2max> 90
> ml/kg/min, is absolutely and clearly a drug cheat. He should make a
> public acknowlegement.
>
> Brad Anders
Love your logic. Carry on.
== 2 of 18 ==
Date: Thurs, Jul 1 2010 2:28 pm
From: Brad Anders
On Jul 1, 2:24 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Love your logic. Carry on.
Not really my logic, though I got close to this when discussing
Rominger's hour record over 15 years ago. It's Vayer's and Lemond's
logic, now. Like I said in another posting, just disqualify the
winner. He had to have been a cheat, since we know they're all cheats
and he beat them.
Brad Anders
== 3 of 18 ==
Date: Thurs, Jul 1 2010 2:46 pm
From: --D-y
On Jul 1, 4:24 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/1/2010 12:46 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 1, 8:54 am, Fred Flintstein<bob.schwa...@sbcREMOVEglobal.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Jesus Fucking Christ. I wonder if he's got his math
> >> figured out yet?
>
> >>http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727673.900-superhuman-perform...
>
> >> Fred Flintstein
>
> > I think it's cool, because the way I read this paragraph:
>
> > "In one study of 11 world-class cyclists, the highest VO2 max was 82.5
> > ml/kg/min (Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, vol 34, p
> > 2079). Levels above 85 ml/kg/min are "very rare", says Ross Tucker at
> > the University of Cape Town in South Africa. Olaf Schumacher at the
> > University of Freiburg in Germany agrees, saying that values above
> > this for cyclists are "definitely very high" and beyond what he feels
> > is "natural"."
>
> > .... it means that Greg Lemond, with a self-acknowledged VO2max> 90
> > ml/kg/min, is absolutely and clearly a drug cheat. He should make a
> > public acknowlegement.
>
> > Brad Anders
>
> Love your logic. Carry on.
"It's even more delicious when the Lemond Anti-Lance Vector might have
been the biggest cheat of all".
("Not saying he was, of course. We don't prove anything here, but
invite the readers to look at the numbers and decide for themselves")
--D-y
== 4 of 18 ==
Date: Thurs, Jul 1 2010 2:59 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"
On 7/1/2010 5:28 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
> On Jul 1, 2:24 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> Love your logic. Carry on.
>
> Not really my logic, though I got close to this when discussing
> Rominger's hour record over 15 years ago. It's Vayer's and Lemond's
> logic, now. Like I said in another posting, just disqualify the
> winner. He had to have been a cheat, since we know they're all cheats
> and he beat them.
>
> Brad Anders
The core point is that prior to the advent of epo certain wattage levels
when climbing were not reached. The calculations are relatively easy to
do with known climbs when you have the climbing time and a fairly
accurate approximation of the rider's weight with bicycle.
It is what it is. As for Lemond, IIRC, his Vo2 max was measured in the
lab, pre-epo era, at 93. Armstrong was around 82 although his web site
had it creeping upward to 83 or 83.5 at one point. Take a look at
http://bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html
== 5 of 18 ==
Date: Thurs, Jul 1 2010 3:58 pm
From: Brad Anders
On Jul 1, 2:59 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> The core point is that prior to the advent of epo certain wattage levels
> when climbing were not reached. The calculations are relatively easy to
> do with known climbs when you have the climbing time and a fairly
> accurate approximation of the rider's weight with bicycle.
Yeah, I know. I used to write a column in "Winning" about such
things.
Brad Anders
== 6 of 18 ==
Date: Thurs, Jul 1 2010 4:30 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"
On 7/1/2010 6:58 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
> On Jul 1, 2:59 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> The core point is that prior to the advent of epo certain wattage levels
>> when climbing were not reached. The calculations are relatively easy to
>> do with known climbs when you have the climbing time and a fairly
>> accurate approximation of the rider's weight with bicycle.
>
> Yeah, I know. I used to write a column in "Winning" about such
> things.
>
> Brad Anders
>
>
What is Rich Carlsen up to these days?
== 7 of 18 ==
Date: Thurs, Jul 1 2010 4:51 pm
From: "K. Fred Gauss"
B. Lafferty wrote:
> pre-epo
There is disagreement over what that means. There are some who
conveniently define that to mean "before Lemond retired".
== 8 of 18 ==
Date: Thurs, Jul 1 2010 5:08 pm
From: --D-y
On Jul 1, 4:59 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/1/2010 5:28 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
>
> > On Jul 1, 2:24 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >> Love your logic. Carry on.
>
> > Not really my logic, though I got close to this when discussing
> > Rominger's hour record over 15 years ago. It's Vayer's and Lemond's
> > logic, now. Like I said in another posting, just disqualify the
> > winner. He had to have been a cheat, since we know they're all cheats
> > and he beat them.
>
> > Brad Anders
>
> The core point is that prior to the advent of epo certain wattage levels
> when climbing were not reached. The calculations are relatively easy to
> do with known climbs when you have the climbing time and a fairly
> accurate approximation of the rider's weight with bicycle.
>
> It is what it is. As for Lemond, IIRC, his Vo2 max was measured in the
> lab, pre-epo era, at 93. Armstrong was around 82 although his web site
> had it creeping upward to 83 or 83.5 at one point. Take a look athttp://bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html
Jeeze, Brian, you call people here fanboys. Chairman of what Bill, I
couldn't read too far.
Never forgetting, the alleged VO max is both the source of
"entitlement" *and* virtual wins.
Well, of course, entitlement is the source of the virtual wins, but...
Who knows what Lemond was on that day in the lab?
If he could show those numbers every day, given his generation-topping
"bike handling", he should have won every race he ever entered, even
with everyone conspiring against him-- unless he fell down, of course.
--D-y
== 9 of 18 ==
Date: Thurs, Jul 1 2010 5:12 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"
On 7/1/2010 7:51 PM, K. Fred Gauss wrote:
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>
>> pre-epo
>
> There is disagreement over what that means. There are some who
> conveniently define that to mean "before Lemond retired".
There is disagreement as to when epo use became common. It has nothing
to do with when Lemond retired. There is no disagreement regarding the
average wattage output of climbers in the Tour and the fact that wattage
output increased dramatically once epo was readily available. Lemond,
while at the high end of the performance curve, was behind the curve
once epo became prevalent.
== 10 of 18 ==
Date: Thurs, Jul 1 2010 5:15 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"
On 7/1/2010 8:08 PM, --D-y wrote:
> On Jul 1, 4:59 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 7/1/2010 5:28 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 1, 2:24 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Love your logic. Carry on.
>>
>>> Not really my logic, though I got close to this when discussing
>>> Rominger's hour record over 15 years ago. It's Vayer's and Lemond's
>>> logic, now. Like I said in another posting, just disqualify the
>>> winner. He had to have been a cheat, since we know they're all cheats
>>> and he beat them.
>>
>>> Brad Anders
>>
>> The core point is that prior to the advent of epo certain wattage levels
>> when climbing were not reached. The calculations are relatively easy to
>> do with known climbs when you have the climbing time and a fairly
>> accurate approximation of the rider's weight with bicycle.
>>
>> It is what it is. As for Lemond, IIRC, his Vo2 max was measured in the
>> lab, pre-epo era, at 93. Armstrong was around 82 although his web site
>> had it creeping upward to 83 or 83.5 at one point. Take a look athttp://bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html
>
> Jeeze, Brian, you call people here fanboys. Chairman of what Bill, I
> couldn't read too far.
Founder of Torelli Imports. The issue isn't really Vo2 Max. It's
wattage. You might understand that by reading a bit further.
>
> Never forgetting, the alleged VO max is both the source of
> "entitlement" *and* virtual wins.
> Well, of course, entitlement is the source of the virtual wins, but...
>
> Who knows what Lemond was on that day in the lab?
> If he could show those numbers every day, given his generation-topping
> "bike handling", he should have won every race he ever entered, even
> with everyone conspiring against him-- unless he fell down, of course.
> --D-y
== 11 of 18 ==
Date: Thurs, Jul 1 2010 5:18 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"
On 7/1/2010 8:15 PM, B. Lafferty wrote:
> On 7/1/2010 8:08 PM, --D-y wrote:
>> On Jul 1, 4:59 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> On 7/1/2010 5:28 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 1, 2:24 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Love your logic. Carry on.
>>>
>>>> Not really my logic, though I got close to this when discussing
>>>> Rominger's hour record over 15 years ago. It's Vayer's and Lemond's
>>>> logic, now. Like I said in another posting, just disqualify the
>>>> winner. He had to have been a cheat, since we know they're all cheats
>>>> and he beat them.
>>>
>>>> Brad Anders
>>>
>>> The core point is that prior to the advent of epo certain wattage levels
>>> when climbing were not reached. The calculations are relatively easy to
>>> do with known climbs when you have the climbing time and a fairly
>>> accurate approximation of the rider's weight with bicycle.
>>>
>>> It is what it is. As for Lemond, IIRC, his Vo2 max was measured in the
>>> lab, pre-epo era, at 93. Armstrong was around 82 although his web site
>>> had it creeping upward to 83 or 83.5 at one point. Take a look
>>> athttp://bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html
>>
>> Jeeze, Brian, you call people here fanboys. Chairman of what Bill, I
>> couldn't read too far.
>
> Founder of Torelli Imports. The issue isn't really Vo2 Max. It's
> wattage. You might understand that by reading a bit further.
>
>>
>> Never forgetting, the alleged VO max is both the source of
>> "entitlement" *and* virtual wins.
>> Well, of course, entitlement is the source of the virtual wins, but...
>>
>> Who knows what Lemond was on that day in the lab?
>> If he could show those numbers every day, given his generation-topping
>> "bike handling", he should have won every race he ever entered, even
>> with everyone conspiring against him-- unless he fell down, of course.
>> --D-y
>
I should also remind you that I suspected and wrote about Lemond and
steroid abuse that may have led to the onset of his mitochondrial
myopathy. That would have been back in the mid-1990s.
== 12 of 18 ==
Date: Thurs, Jul 1 2010 5:32 pm
From: "Fred Gringioni"
"B. Lafferty" <bl@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:8rOdncscoutRkrDRnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
: On 7/1/2010 5:28 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
: > On Jul 1, 2:24 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
: >
: >> Love your logic. Carry on.
: >
: > Not really my logic, though I got close to this when discussing
: > Rominger's hour record over 15 years ago. It's Vayer's and Lemond's
: > logic, now. Like I said in another posting, just disqualify the
: > winner. He had to have been a cheat, since we know they're all cheats
: > and he beat them.
: >
: > Brad Anders
:
: The core point is that prior to the advent of epo certain wattage levels
: when climbing were not reached. The calculations are relatively easy to
: do with known climbs when you have the climbing time and a fairly
: accurate approximation of the rider's weight with bicycle.
:
: It is what it is. As for Lemond, IIRC, his Vo2 max was measured in the
: lab, pre-epo era, at 93. Armstrong was around 82 although his web site
: had it creeping upward to 83 or 83.5 at one point. Take a look at
: http://bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html
Dumbass -
VO2 can be increased since the denominator is the athlete's weight (in
kilograms).
Anders is right about Lemond being dirty if he uses his own logic.
thanks,
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
== 13 of 18 ==
Date: Thurs, Jul 1 2010 5:45 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"
On 7/1/2010 8:32 PM, Fred Gringioni wrote:
>
> "B. Lafferty"<bl@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:8rOdncscoutRkrDRnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> : On 7/1/2010 5:28 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
> :> On Jul 1, 2:24 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> :>
> :>> Love your logic. Carry on.
> :>
> :> Not really my logic, though I got close to this when discussing
> :> Rominger's hour record over 15 years ago. It's Vayer's and Lemond's
> :> logic, now. Like I said in another posting, just disqualify the
> :> winner. He had to have been a cheat, since we know they're all cheats
> :> and he beat them.
> :>
> :> Brad Anders
> :
> : The core point is that prior to the advent of epo certain wattage levels
> : when climbing were not reached. The calculations are relatively easy to
> : do with known climbs when you have the climbing time and a fairly
> : accurate approximation of the rider's weight with bicycle.
> :
> : It is what it is. As for Lemond, IIRC, his Vo2 max was measured in the
> : lab, pre-epo era, at 93. Armstrong was around 82 although his web site
> : had it creeping upward to 83 or 83.5 at one point. Take a look at
> : http://bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> VO2 can be increased since the denominator is the athlete's weight (in
> kilograms).
>
> Anders is right about Lemond being dirty if he uses his own logic.
>
> thanks,
>
> Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
>
It's about the wattage, dumb dumb.
== 14 of 18 ==
Date: Thurs, Jul 1 2010 5:55 pm
From: "Fred Gringioni"
"B. Lafferty" <bl@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MISdnaS-TLZRq7DRnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
: On 7/1/2010 8:32 PM, Fred Gringioni wrote:
: >
: > "B. Lafferty"<bl@nowhere.com> wrote in message
: > news:8rOdncscoutRkrDRnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
: > : On 7/1/2010 5:28 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
: > :> On Jul 1, 2:24 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
: > :>
: > :>> Love your logic. Carry on.
: > :>
: > :> Not really my logic, though I got close to this when discussing
: > :> Rominger's hour record over 15 years ago. It's Vayer's and Lemond's
: > :> logic, now. Like I said in another posting, just disqualify the
: > :> winner. He had to have been a cheat, since we know they're all
cheats
: > :> and he beat them.
: > :>
: > :> Brad Anders
: > :
: > : The core point is that prior to the advent of epo certain wattage
levels
: > : when climbing were not reached. The calculations are relatively easy
to
: > : do with known climbs when you have the climbing time and a fairly
: > : accurate approximation of the rider's weight with bicycle.
: > :
: > : It is what it is. As for Lemond, IIRC, his Vo2 max was measured in
the
: > : lab, pre-epo era, at 93. Armstrong was around 82 although his web
site
: > : had it creeping upward to 83 or 83.5 at one point. Take a look at
: > : http://bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html
: >
: >
: >
: > Dumbass -
: >
: > VO2 can be increased since the denominator is the athlete's weight (in
: > kilograms).
: >
: > Anders is right about Lemond being dirty if he uses his own logic.
: >
: > thanks,
: >
: > Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
: >
: It's about the wattage, dumb dumb.
Dumbass -
I guess that, all else being equal, bigger VO2 doesn't equal more wattage
eh?
thanks,
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
== 15 of 18 ==
Date: Thurs, Jul 1 2010 6:16 pm
From: Brad Anders
On Jul 1, 5:45 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/1/2010 8:32 PM, Fred Gringioni wrote:
>
>
>
> > "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> >news:8rOdncscoutRkrDRnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> > : On 7/1/2010 5:28 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
> > :> On Jul 1, 2:24 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > :>
> > :>> Love your logic. Carry on.
> > :>
> > :> Not really my logic, though I got close to this when discussing
> > :> Rominger's hour record over 15 years ago. It's Vayer's and Lemond's
> > :> logic, now. Like I said in another posting, just disqualify the
> > :> winner. He had to have been a cheat, since we know they're all cheats
> > :> and he beat them.
> > :>
> > :> Brad Anders
> > :
> > : The core point is that prior to the advent of epo certain wattage levels
> > : when climbing were not reached. The calculations are relatively easy to
> > : do with known climbs when you have the climbing time and a fairly
> > : accurate approximation of the rider's weight with bicycle.
> > :
> > : It is what it is. As for Lemond, IIRC, his Vo2 max was measured in the
> > : lab, pre-epo era, at 93. Armstrong was around 82 although his web site
> > : had it creeping upward to 83 or 83.5 at one point. Take a look at
> > :http://bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> > VO2 can be increased since the denominator is the athlete's weight (in
> > kilograms).
>
> > Anders is right about Lemond being dirty if he uses his own logic.
>
> > thanks,
>
> > Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
>
> It's about the wattage, dumb dumb.
Uh, Brian, read the quote I cited from the article. Independent of any
observation of extreme average power levels, the physiologist cited
said that levels over 90 ml/kg/min for VO2max were not "natural". It
therefore follows that in his estimation, a person like Lemond, with a
<measured> (not estimated, not inferred, not implied) VO2max of over
92 ml/kg/min almost certainly attained that level in an "unnatural"
manner, in the view of the physiologist. You can also include guys
like Bjorn Dahlie, who it is reported actually exceeded 100 ml/kg/min.
Seeing as how Lemond has been trumpeting that these implied methods
are as good as blood and urine tests for detecting dopers, he should
be the first to acknowledge that his own performances are suspect.
As for the power relationship to VO2max, this is far less clear. As
Marquis used to remind us regularly (and rightly, IMO), a high VO2max
is not an assurance of cycling success. Sustained power output is a
combination of oxygen uptake (related to VO2max), cycling efficiency,
lactate tolerance, and mechanical considerations. VO2max is a strong
indicator, but not the only factor. I would also suggest that any
estimate of power output in lieu of actual data from Powertap or SRM
records is suspect, as it is an estimate and does not comprehend
variations due to drafting (small, but significant at the climbing
speeds of pros) or known and accurate assessments of rolling
resistance or actual rider+bike+gear weight.
Brad Anders
== 16 of 18 ==
Date: Thurs, Jul 1 2010 6:40 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"
On 7/1/2010 9:16 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
> On Jul 1, 5:45 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 7/1/2010 8:32 PM, Fred Gringioni wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:8rOdncscoutRkrDRnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> : On 7/1/2010 5:28 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
>>> :> On Jul 1, 2:24 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> :>
>>> :>> Love your logic. Carry on.
>>> :>
>>> :> Not really my logic, though I got close to this when discussing
>>> :> Rominger's hour record over 15 years ago. It's Vayer's and Lemond's
>>> :> logic, now. Like I said in another posting, just disqualify the
>>> :> winner. He had to have been a cheat, since we know they're all cheats
>>> :> and he beat them.
>>> :>
>>> :> Brad Anders
>>> :
>>> : The core point is that prior to the advent of epo certain wattage levels
>>> : when climbing were not reached. The calculations are relatively easy to
>>> : do with known climbs when you have the climbing time and a fairly
>>> : accurate approximation of the rider's weight with bicycle.
>>> :
>>> : It is what it is. As for Lemond, IIRC, his Vo2 max was measured in the
>>> : lab, pre-epo era, at 93. Armstrong was around 82 although his web site
>>> : had it creeping upward to 83 or 83.5 at one point. Take a look at
>>> :http://bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html
>>
>>> Dumbass -
>>
>>> VO2 can be increased since the denominator is the athlete's weight (in
>>> kilograms).
>>
>>> Anders is right about Lemond being dirty if he uses his own logic.
>>
>>> thanks,
>>
>>> Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
>>
>> It's about the wattage, dumb dumb.
>
> Uh, Brian, read the quote I cited from the article. Independent of any
> observation of extreme average power levels, the physiologist cited
> said that levels over 90 ml/kg/min for VO2max were not "natural". It
> therefore follows that in his estimation, a person like Lemond, with a
> <measured> (not estimated, not inferred, not implied) VO2max of over
> 92 ml/kg/min almost certainly attained that level in an "unnatural"
> manner, in the view of the physiologist. You can also include guys
> like Bjorn Dahlie, who it is reported actually exceeded 100 ml/kg/min.
> Seeing as how Lemond has been trumpeting that these implied methods
> are as good as blood and urine tests for detecting dopers, he should
> be the first to acknowledge that his own performances are suspect.
If athletes in varying sports have been subject to Vo2 Max tests in the
early 1980 or before, the physiologist needs to explain how such results
are possible absent doping.
>
> As for the power relationship to VO2max, this is far less clear. As
> Marquis used to remind us regularly (and rightly, IMO), a high VO2max
> is not an assurance of cycling success. Sustained power output is a
> combination of oxygen uptake (related to VO2max), cycling efficiency,
> lactate tolerance, and mechanical considerations. VO2max is a strong
> indicator, but not the only factor. I would also suggest that any
> estimate of power output in lieu of actual data from Powertap or SRM
> records is suspect, as it is an estimate and does not comprehend
> variations due to drafting (small, but significant at the climbing
> speeds of pros) or known and accurate assessments of rolling
> resistance or actual rider+bike+gear weight.
While the climbing wattages may not be as accurate as those recorded
with Powertap or SRM, they are accurate enough to demonstrate that
something happened at the time epo use became prevalent. What do you
think a reasonable margin of error would be for those earlier wattage
estimates?
>
> Brad Anders
== 17 of 18 ==
Date: Thurs, Jul 1 2010 6:42 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"
On 7/1/2010 8:55 PM, Fred Gringioni wrote:
>
> "B. Lafferty"<bl@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:MISdnaS-TLZRq7DRnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> : On 7/1/2010 8:32 PM, Fred Gringioni wrote:
> :>
> :> "B. Lafferty"<bl@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> :> news:8rOdncscoutRkrDRnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> :> : On 7/1/2010 5:28 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
> :> :> On Jul 1, 2:24 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> :> :>
> :> :>> Love your logic. Carry on.
> :> :>
> :> :> Not really my logic, though I got close to this when discussing
> :> :> Rominger's hour record over 15 years ago. It's Vayer's and Lemond's
> :> :> logic, now. Like I said in another posting, just disqualify the
> :> :> winner. He had to have been a cheat, since we know they're all
> cheats
> :> :> and he beat them.
> :> :>
> :> :> Brad Anders
> :> :
> :> : The core point is that prior to the advent of epo certain wattage
> levels
> :> : when climbing were not reached. The calculations are relatively easy
> to
> :> : do with known climbs when you have the climbing time and a fairly
> :> : accurate approximation of the rider's weight with bicycle.
> :> :
> :> : It is what it is. As for Lemond, IIRC, his Vo2 max was measured in
> the
> :> : lab, pre-epo era, at 93. Armstrong was around 82 although his web
> site
> :> : had it creeping upward to 83 or 83.5 at one point. Take a look at
> :> : http://bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html
> :>
> :>
> :>
> :> Dumbass -
> :>
> :> VO2 can be increased since the denominator is the athlete's weight (in
> :> kilograms).
> :>
> :> Anders is right about Lemond being dirty if he uses his own logic.
> :>
> :> thanks,
> :>
> :> Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
> :>
> : It's about the wattage, dumb dumb.
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> I guess that, all else being equal, bigger VO2 doesn't equal more wattage
> eh?
>
> thanks,
>
> Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
>
The issue is how you effectively increase your Vo2 and your wattage,
dumb dumb.
== 18 of 18 ==
Date: Thurs, Jul 1 2010 7:05 pm
From: "K. Fred Gauss"
B. Lafferty wrote:
> On 7/1/2010 7:51 PM, K. Fred Gauss wrote:
>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>
>>> pre-epo
>>
>> There is disagreement over what that means. There are some who
>> conveniently define that to mean "before Lemond retired".
>
> There is disagreement as to when epo use became common. It has nothing
> to do with when Lemond retired.
There is, to Lemond fanboys.
Step 1: Pretend like EPO wasn't available.
Step 2: Pretend like blood doping doesn't count.
Step 3: Pretend like nothing else is performance enhancing, either.
Step 4: Call anyone who disagrees names.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: TdF Stage 3 - Risk to Contador?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/17379c8d766113ba?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jul 1 2010 6:52 pm
From: Andre
On Jun 30, 6:03 pm, --D-y <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
> On Jun 30, 11:30 am, Brad Anders <pband...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.cyclingnews.com/races/97th-tour-de-france-gt/stage-3
>
> > Are the cobbles a risk to Contador?
>
> This race beginning is an obvious gift-- and compliment-- to Lance
> Armstrong.
> Don't let anyone kid you, the French love him and would be ecstatic to
> see him win Number Eight, a record that would be a long time in the
> equalling, including a second miraculous comeback story.
> --D-y
The French detest Lance.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.bicycles.racing"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.bicycles.racing+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
Posts
