# Would he have still won?



## toymanator (Dec 14, 2010)

Let's lay aside all of the conspiracy theories and drama and assume the worst. I was talking with a co-worker today and posed this question. If the peleton and the rest of the field were completely clean, and there was a level playing field, do you think Lance would have still won? The guy is a super athlete performance enhancing methods aside, the man is unbelievably driven to compete and win in any of the races he is a part of. It was fun for me to watch him strive to reach his goal of competing in the Kona Ironman finals. Anatomically his body was built for endurance sports. Do you think he would have still won multiple Tours if the playing field was level and everyone else was clean?


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

Thats the problem, no one has a clue. The drugs made this an impossible question.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

Maybe a couple Tours but certainly not seven in a row.


----------



## HikenBike (Apr 3, 2007)

toymanator said:


> Anatomically his body was built for endurance sports


What makes you think he is any more or any less anatomically built for endurance sports than his fellow competitors?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

HikenBike said:


> What makes you think he is any more or any less anatomically built for endurance sports than his fellow competitors?


Wiggins looks a bit like a weight lifter to me


----------



## gh1 (Jun 7, 2008)

Never would have won one. He was always too heavy and didnt even have the best vo2max on his team.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

den bakker said:


> Wiggins looks a bit like a weight lifter to me


Wiggins body shape looks unhealthy. Froome on the other hand just looks plain ridiculous.


----------



## My Own Private Idaho (Aug 14, 2007)

Henry Porter said:


> Thats the problem, no one has a clue. The drugs made this an impossible question.


This. There's no way to tell.


----------



## whiterabbit05 (Oct 30, 2009)

gh1 said:


> Never would have won one. He was always too heavy and didnt even have the best vo2max on his team.


VO2 Max isn't everything. 

I think he would have at least won one.


----------



## OneGear (Aug 19, 2005)

gh1 said:


> Never would have won one. He was always too heavy and didnt even have the best vo2max on his team.


do you seriously think that based on these two metrics, we can determine if an individual can win a tour?


----------



## pianopiano (Jun 4, 2005)

*doesn't matter*



Henry Porter said:


> Thats the problem, no one has a clue. The drugs made this an impossible question.


This is the correct answer.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Armstrong never gave any indication he could win a GT before he started working with Ferrari and there's plenty of indications that he was doping then. So it wasn't so much the doping that turned him into a GT winner but working with Ferrari.

That being said, he did compete at a significantly lower weight following his cancer. Maybe Boonen could be a GT winner if he dropped 20 lbs?


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Well Lance obviously didn't think so. That's why he doped..


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

toymanator said:


> Let's lay aside all of the conspiracy theories and drama and assume the worst. I was talking with a co-worker today and posed this question. If the peleton and the rest of the field were completely clean, and there was a level playing field, do you think Lance would have still won? The guy is a super athlete performance enhancing methods aside, the man is unbelievably driven to compete and win in any of the races he is a part of. It was fun for me to watch him strive to reach his goal of competing in the Kona Ironman finals. Anatomically his body was built for endurance sports. Do you think he would have still won multiple Tours if the playing field was level and everyone else was clean?


No he would not have, go back pre 98 and check his results for GC wins.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

roddjbrown said:


> Wiggins body shape looks unhealthy. Froome on the other hand just looks plain ridiculous.


Wiggins on the bike looks like a giant potatoe with sticks for arms and legs. Froome reminds me of an agitated gorilla the way he tilts his head and straddles over the handlebars.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

Armstrong would never have placed in the top ten of the Tour in a clean sport. Riders like Landis had a better VO2Max. Armstrong's was pretty average by pro standards.

In his latest interview, Bassons says that the difference between placing 80th and winning the Tour was dope. Bassons used to beat Virenque on climbs in the winter. Lesser talented riders were able to reap huge wins by taking more risks with their health.

Armstrong's entire career is built on fraud. Without a doped up sport, he would have won single day races, GT stages, and maybe a classic or two. A good career but no one is placing Bettini amongst the greats for results similar to what Armstrong could have honestly achieved..


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Henry Porter said:


> Thats the problem, no one has a clue. The drugs made this an impossible question.


Clue: He did everything better than everyone else. You cannot transform an athlete's characteristics with drugs, you can only enhance them. His coaches figured out how to get him to be better in GT's but it could not have been done if the natural ability to do so were not present. In a clean peloton there is no reason to think it would have gone any differently. We have no idea how bad the others could've been without the dope.



trailrunner68 said:


> Armstrong's entire career is built on fraud. Without a doped up sport, he would have won single day races, GT stages, and maybe a classic or two. A good career but no one is placing Bettini amongst the greats for results similar to what Armstrong could have honestly achieved..


Bettini is among the greats as are many other racers with no GT wins on their palmares, just not to Americans or those who think a legacy can only be built in France in July.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

No way he wins a Tour without drugs, without Ferrari

Armstrong was transformed by doping. From a guy who dropped out of his first 2 Tours to Winning 7. 

He had the best medical advice and responded the best to his program. If a level playing field existed his rightful place would be off the back on all the big climbs and out of the top 20 in the TT


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

It doesn't matter.

But it is good to know that whale sh_t eventually sinks.


----------



## djg21 (Oct 25, 2003)

I don't think he would have had ample team support to win 7 Tours if his team wasn't systematically doping.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> No way he wins a Tour without drugs, without Ferrari
> 
> Armstrong was transformed by doping. From a guy who dropped out of his first 2 Tours to Winning 7.
> 
> He had the best medical advice and responded the best to his program. If a level playing field existed his rightful place would be off the back on all the big climbs and out of the top 20 in the TT




Agreed.


----------



## il sogno (Jul 15, 2002)

No he wouldn't have won. He might have done well in the one day classics or as a stage hunter in the grand tours.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

davidka said:


> Clue: He did everything better than everyone else. You cannot transform an athlete's characteristics with drugs, you can only enhance them.


Bernhard Kohl likes the way you think.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

den bakker said:


> Bernhard Kohl likes the way you think.




Sadly; tis true.


----------



## RkFast (Dec 11, 2004)

I think he would have, big time. Im sure Ill get flamed to high hell by Chris-X and the rest of the anti- LA mafia...and Im really not trying to wax TOO romantic about his accomplishments, but LA broke new ground with his tour training and prep, had the aggressive, mental fortitude to win and was naturally gifted. I think the comparisons to Bernard Kohl and other "one hit wonders" is unfair. There is also this...he WAS on a level playing field becuase they were all doped up, too. And LA blew their doors off. 

Of course, its impossible to say if he would have have had the same prolific career. But LA was/is a naturally gifted athlete and its safe to say he would have had a successful career without doping.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

RkFast said:


> There is also this...he WAS on a level playing field becuase they were all doped up, too. /QUOTE]
> how do you know?


----------



## RkFast (Dec 11, 2004)

den bakker said:


> RkFast said:
> 
> 
> > There is also this...he WAS on a level playing field becuase they were all doped up, too. /QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

den bakker said:


> how do you know?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

RkFast said:


> den bakker said:
> 
> 
> > Look at the names. Come on.
> ...


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

"everybody doped" /= "level playing field"


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

den bakker said:


> I'm not doubting most of them if not all were doped, were they on similar programs though? could they afford it and afford it for what appears to be large parts of the team?


Given the botched Kelme transfusions, I don't think all programs were equal because some just weren't as good at it.


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

il sogno said:


> No he wouldn't have won. He might have done well in the one day classics or as a stage hunter in the grand tours.


My feelings too. I think he'd have had a very Hincapie-ish career, perhaps a little better, but never a GT contender.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Lots of incredibly negative vibes here, folks. Read this great New Yorker article written in 2002, then come back with your opinions. :biggrin5:

THE LONG RIDE — www.newyorker.com — Readability


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Big-foot said:


> My feelings too. I think he'd have had a very Hincapie-ish career, perhaps a little better, but never a GT contender.


'Cept stage hunters weren't immune to being dopers.


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

toymanator said:


> The guy is a super athlete performance enhancing methods aside, the man is unbelievably driven to compete and win in any of the races he is a part of.


Get to know (through googling) the teenage years of ANY pro athlete, and EVERY one of them is a super athlete. The pitcher for your local double A baseball team - best pitcher ever out of his HS, maybe went to college, was all-conference at college, etc... 

I don't believe Armstrong's resume is any standard deviations away from his competitors during his teen years.


----------



## gh1 (Jun 7, 2008)

RkFast said:


> I think he would have, big time. Im sure Ill get flamed to high hell by Chris-X and the rest of the anti- LA mafia...and Im really not trying to wax TOO romantic about his accomplishments, but LA broke new ground with his tour training and prep, had the aggressive, mental fortitude to win and was naturally gifted. I think the comparisons to Bernard Kohl and other "one hit wonders" is unfair. There is also this...he WAS on a level playing field becuase they were all doped up, too. And LA blew their doors off.
> 
> Of course, its impossible to say if he would have have had the same prolific career. But LA was/is a naturally gifted athlete and its safe to say he would have had a successful career without doping.


The problem with your assertion is that people dont respond to dope equally. LA responded well to it and had the best Dr for it.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

RkFast said:


> I think he would have, big time. Im sure Ill get flamed to high hell by Chris-X and the rest of the anti- LA mafia...and Im really not trying to wax TOO romantic about his accomplishments, but LA broke new ground with his tour training and prep, had the aggressive, mental fortitude to win and was naturally gifted. I think the comparisons to Bernard Kohl and other "one hit wonders" is unfair. There is also this...he WAS on a level playing field becuase they were all doped up, too. And LA blew their doors off.
> 
> Of course, its impossible to say if he would have have had the same prolific career. But LA was/is a naturally gifted athlete and its safe to say he would have had a successful career without doping.


Actually he didn't break new ground people were doing much of the same things training wise before him and the ideas of previewing stages wasn't new. The playing feild wasn't level not every one was doped up and not everyone was doping at the same level as Lance or responded to it that same way so that argument is right out as well. Add to that we don't even know how successful he would have been without dope because it seems not that he was on it since his Jr years. I think he might have done well as a classics guy stage hunter but really who knows.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Before Lance got cancer he was doping and he never showed the talents that were necessary to win a GT because he couldn't handle the high mountains. He was a one day rider and could hold his own in short stage races.

Two things changed when he came back, Ferrari prepared him and he competed at a significantly lower weight. I suspect both of those transformed him and without either one he would have never have won a GT, or at best gotten "lucky" in one like Sean Kelly had everything worked out just right for him.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

RkFast said:


> I think he would have, big time. Im sure Ill get flamed to high hell by Chris-X and the rest of the anti- LA mafia...and Im really not trying to wax TOO romantic about his accomplishments, but LA broke new ground with his tour training and prep, had the aggressive, mental fortitude to win and was naturally gifted. I think the comparisons to Bernard Kohl and other "one hit wonders" is unfair. There is also this...he WAS on a level playing field becuase they were all doped up, too. And LA blew their doors off.
> 
> Of course, its impossible to say if he would have have had the same prolific career. But LA was/is a naturally gifted athlete and its safe to say he would have had a successful career without doping.


How do you explain his early Tour attempts?


Going from multiple abandonments to seven time winner.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

If you look at his performances as a youth up to cancer, it is clear he was a DAMN gifted athlete, no two ways about it. Anyone who tries to say that dope turned him into an elite athlete is in denial that dope turns people into supermen, it doesn't. 

Would he have won 7? maybe not but let us be honest and compare the pre EPO era to the post 1989 era. 

Point 1. The difference in average speed is in the single digits in terms of % difference. Hell it's single digits in terms of raw numbers.
Point 2. The difference between the top 5-15 and the rest of the field is much larger than this.

So even if you remove EPO and the guys at the top really pushing the pace are back down to the earth, the difference in their performance is not so huge that they would not still have been in those top spots. The seats may be rearranged, so number one is instead 3, 5 or whatever, but that is about it.

Anyone who says that the 40th placed rider would have suddenly beat the top rider if the top rider hadn't doped (and assuming the 40th placed rider wasn't which is a HUGE stretch) is simply deluding themselves.

Now I am against doping just like I am against illegal drugs. However the anti-doping regime in sport is largely about subjective concepts, morality etc. just like the "war on drugs" and it is probably best to try and keep it there. Trying to say "would he have won" etc. invites a situation where people will just go around in circles.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

badge118 said:


> If you look at his performances as a youth up to cancer, it is clear he was a DAMN gifted athlete, no two ways about it. Anyone who tries to say that dope turned him into an elite athlete is in denial that dope turns people into supermen, it doesn't.
> 
> Would he have won 7? maybe not but let us be honest and compare the pre EPO era to the post 1989 era.
> 
> ...


There's quantitative scientific evidence that doping can, depending on the athlete, give far greater than single digit percentage performance increases. I know you like this average speed thing but I'm still wondering how it's calculated


----------



## Wardnemisis (May 24, 2012)

How many dopers were kicked out of the tour that were not even close to the gc? There were always guys who were not close to winning and got caught. Lance doped I have no doubt about it just like the majority of pro athletes and Olympic athletes and to think that's not true you're naive. He trained harder and plus was just better than everyone else. What is the average age of the winners of the tour? I really don't know but I would think it was probably late 20's early 30's and wasn't Lance about that age when he came back from his winning battle with cancer. Say what you want Lance is a winner at everything he does. He beat cancer, he beat everyone in the TDF and he would have end up winning in his Tri's, just like he did when he was a teenager


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

You don't seem to understand the impact of EPO. It's way more than a few percent, especially for someone with a strong response. It's a complete game changer, and the differences in response from one athlete to the next mean the idea that there is some kind of level playing field if everyone is doping is nonsense.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/11/effect-of-epo-on-performance-who.html?m=1


----------



## Wardnemisis (May 24, 2012)

So then why would Lance react to it different to it then somebody else who took EPO if he was not already a better athlete?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Given the supposed required watts to win a GT in Armstrong's day compared to what the top guys are putting out today, and they may very well not be clean, I'd say EPO/blood doping is worth at least ~10% increase in power. When you add in all the other "recovery" hormones they were likely taking 10% again seems like a minimum.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Fireform said:


> You don't seem to understand the impact of EPO. It's way more than a few percent, especially for someone with a strong response. It's a complete game changer, and the differences in response from one athlete to the next mean the idea that there is some kind of level playing field if everyone is doping is nonsense.
> 
> The Science of Sport: The effect of EPO on performance: Who wouldn't want to use it?


That's probably the most significant point of doping: No one responds the exact same with the same given drug. 


And that's not including the medical care the athletes were/are receiving. LA arguably received the best care because he could afford it.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Wardnemisis said:


> So then why would Lance react to it different to it then somebody else who took EPO if he was not already a better athlete?


It's a red herring anyway since there are multiple indications Armstrong was doping with EPO and other drugs before he got cancer. Doping did not turn him into a GT winner. Although more intelligent doping guided by Ferrari almost certainly did, along with significant weight loss.


----------



## Wardnemisis (May 24, 2012)

That's is true about the recovery drugs they take. I was told by a pro baseball player for the White Sox now when he was with the Reds then Arizona that the majority of players in Pro baseball who use steroids are the pitchers for the recovery after pitching


----------



## Wardnemisis (May 24, 2012)

It amazes me how much the media bashes cycling as the "dirtiest" sport there is but how many baseball and football players each year are suspended for using PED's. Every sport is dirty, it's just catching them.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Wardnemisis said:


> So then why would Lance react to it different to it then somebody else who took EPO if he was not already a better athlete?


That's purely a physiology question. 


How one person responds to a med. vs another.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

Wardnemisis said:


> So then why would Lance react to it different to it then somebody else who took EPO if he was not already a better athlete?


Better athletes don't respond better to EPO. That's not how it works.


----------



## Wardnemisis (May 24, 2012)

cda 455 said:


> That's purely a physiology question.
> 
> 
> How one person responds to a med. vs another.


That's my point his body was "built" better than the average person and pro cyclists. He was already a better athlete and EPO and the other PED's made him even better.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

Wardnemisis said:


> That's my point his body was "built" better than the average person and pro cyclists. He was already a better athlete and EPO and the other PED's made him even better.


If you're determined to ignore the facts, nobody will be able to help you. First, Lance was nowhere close to being a GC contender. If he was already such a superior athlete beforehand why couldn't he even finish a grand tour?

Second, you ignored the fact that EPO response, and drug response generally, has little to no correlation with athletic talent. I've done a lot of field work at very high elevations, for instance. Its is bizarre how often a tour bus will arrive at 4000m and the fit, slim, athletic passengers will be poleaxed with altitude sickness, while the overweight smokers often as not wont feel a thing. These things are idiosyncratic.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

From the recent Bicycling magazine piece about Vaughter's:

_
Take two riders of the same age, height, and weight, says Vaughters. They have identical VO2max at threshold—a measure of oxygen uptake at the limit of sustainable aerobic power. But one of them has a natural hematocrit of 36 and one of 47. Those riders have physiologies that don’t respond equally to doping.

It’s not even a simple math equation that, with the old 50 percent hematocrit limit, one rider could gain 14 percent and another only three. Even if you raise the limit to the edge of physical sustainability, 60 percent or more, to allow both athletes significant gains, it’s not an equal effect, Vaughters says.

He goes on to explain that the largest gains in oxygen transport occur in the lower hematocrit ranges—a 50 percent increase in RBC count is not a linear 50 percent increase in oxygen transport capability. The rider with the lower hematocrit is actually extremely efficient at scavenging oxygen from what little hemoglobin that he has, comparatively. So when you boost his red-cell count, he goes a lot faster. The rider at 47 is less efficient, so a boost has less effect.

“You have guys who train the same and are very disciplined athletes, and are even physiologically the same, but one has a quirk that’s very adaptable to the drug du jour,” Vaughters says. “Then all of a sudden your race winner is determined not by some kind of Darwinian selection of who is the strongest and fittest, but whose physiology happened to be most compatible with the drug, or to having 50 different things in him.”
_


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Wardnemisis said:


> It amazes me how much the media bashes cycling as the "dirtiest" sport there is but how many baseball and football players each year are suspended for using PED's. Every sport is dirty, it's just catching them.


Cycling just _looks_ bad. Baseball and football simply don't care to catch people. I highly doubt most linebackers could pass a urine test if they studied for weeks.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Cycling just _looks_ bad. Baseball and football simply don't care to catch people. I highly doubt most linebackers could pass a urine test if they studied for weeks.


With all due respect, cycling doesn't care much either. 


If cycling were serious, they'd have career-end penalties for being found positive. It's just that simple. 

The way UCI is inconsistent with penalties is another example. How many admited dopers that have TDF wins and have kept their wins and their names on the TDF records?


People come to the races to see big names. If UCI started banning (Enforcing their own rules) there would be fewer big names. Big crowds=big money. And UCI knows it.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

At that level the quatitative evidence says otherwise. As the athletes themselves become better the margin of improvement actually decreases quite a bit. So yeah, Amature, College etc, it can make a HUGE difference and get you that contract. Once in the big leagues...not so much.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

badge118 said:


> At that level the quatitative evidence says otherwise. As the athletes themselves become better the margin of improvement actually decreases quite a bit. So yeah, Amature, College etc, it can make a HUGE difference and get you that contract. Once in the big leagues...not so much.


Did you ignore what trailrunner posted by Vaughters? Or just think that you know more about doping than him?


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

roddjbrown said:


> Did you ignore what trailrunner posted by Vaughters? Or just think that you know more about doping than him?


No I just know actual Doctor's of Sports Medicine and Oncologists.
They probably know more about it than he does. Hell do you know some of the doping products used actually have VERY questionable use in sports doping? Doesn't stop em from using it does it? Try talking to real experts and real research not sports personalities. Even though I like JV he is one of the guys on the receiving end. 

I could go into the whole thing about how doping effectiveness is exaggerated by those who do it to justify their doping and/or to encourage others to join them (guilty people love company) but you seem to pretty much have your mind made up so I am not going to waste my time anymore. Enjoy your time in the land of the blind.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

badge118 said:


> No I just know actual Doctor's of Sports Medicine and Oncologists.


Any Sports Scientist that understands blood doping and performance would echo Vaughters words.

The evidence also supports him. Climbing times on most of the key climbs dropped 10%+ in the space of a few years. The record on Alp d'Huez went from 41:50 to 36:30


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Any Sports Scientist that understands blood doping and performance would echo Vaughters words.
> 
> The evidence also supports him. Climbing times on most of the key climbs dropped 10%+ in the space of a few years. The record on Alp d'Huez went from 41:50 to 36:30


You can not look at one metric of performance and make a conclusion. ANY scientist, sports or not, will tell ya that. Have a good one.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Any Sports Scientist that understands blood doping and performance would echo Vaughters words.
> 
> The evidence also supports him. Climbing times on most of the key climbs dropped 10%+ in the space of a few years. The record on Alp d'Huez went from 41:50 to 36:30


Please don't provide actual data, he doesn't like facts.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

badge118 said:


> You can not look at one metric of performance and make a conclusion. ANY scientist, sports or not, will tell ya that. Have a good one.


And yet you keep drawing conclusions based on just Average Speed...


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

badge118 said:


> You can not look at one metric of performance and make a conclusion. ANY scientist, sports or not, will tell ya that. Have a good one.



How so?


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Well first you need to take more than one year... second there are different types of tests for such endurance (TT's and example). Also Alpe d'Huez itself is an issue as the source.



> The climb has been timed since 1994 so earlier times are subject to discussion. From 1994 to 1997 the climb was timed from 14.5 km from the finish. Since 1999 photo-finish has been used from 14 km. Other times have been taken 13.8 km from the summit, which is the start of the climb. Others have been taken from the junction 700m from the start.


For a comparison of times to be valid they need to have the same start and end points, or a mathematical way to account for the added or lost distance.

There are publications that give prior times but the distances are not noted. As such the data is useless for the purposes of this discussion as we only have documented distances post 1994. Bed time and ciao.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

badge118 said:


> No I just know actual Doctor's of Sports Medicine and Oncologists.
> They probably know more about it than he does. Hell do you know some of the doping products used actually have VERY questionable use in sports doping? Doesn't stop em from using it does it? Try talking to real experts and real research not sports personalities. Even though I like JV he is one of the guys on the receiving end.
> 
> I could go into the whole thing about how doping effectiveness is exaggerated by those who do it to justify their doping and/or to encourage others to join them (guilty people love company) but you seem to pretty much have your mind made up so I am not going to waste my time anymore. Enjoy your time in the land of the blind.


Someone who has a decade and a half of experience with real data of how blood doping affects the performance of elite riders cannot be trusted by you because you supposedly know a doc or two with zero experience of how doping affects pros other than they might have once stayed in a Motel 6, and you are condescendingly calling everyone else blind? Good one. Life must be easier when you can just make up your own facts.

So who are these real experts you supposedly talked to? Let's hear a few names.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

badge118 said:


> Well first you need to take more than one year... second there are different types of tests for such endurance (TT's and example). Also Alpe d'Huez itself is an issue as the source.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nope. 

Fignon' time of 41:50 was from French TV and compared to Pantani's on the same time checks, 36:50. While some measure from the round about these times were taken from left that starts the climb

Just because you are confused does not mean the experts are. Climb after climb saw a 10-15% decrease in the space of a few years. Furlan still has the fastest time up the Poggio, Thanks Dr. Ferrari


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Vaughters has more to say about how Oxygen vector doping effects each rider differently. I have seen that same study, will have to dig around for it.




> From an o2 uptake standpoint the percentage gain is about half of the increase in total hemoglobin mass. So, in modern day where the bio-passport would prevent any huge jumps in Hb, say you increased from 14g/dl to 15g/dl (this all assumes that plasma volume is totally stable, which is a very big assumption and almost impossible...but anyway..)..This would bring about a total Hb increase of 6.7%, so the o2 carrying capacity increase and corresponding power increase would be about half of that, so 3.35%. Of course, in 1996, you could go from 14g/dl to 19g/dl quite easily, yielding a power increase of more like 13%! There is some diminishing return after about 16g/dl however because the red cells become so crowded they can no longer deliver oxygen as efficiently, so maybe "only" 10%.
> 
> Ok, so there's the clinical math. One thing not taken into consideration into this is that Hb is a protein that would, in theory, serve as a lactate buffer. So, there is also some undetermined anearobic advantage in addition to just the o2 carrying increase. In a race where repeated anearobic efforts are required and recovery from those efforts are required, over and over, there will be some culmulative advantage as well.
> 
> Also, an old Finnish study (if you can find it) found that a*thletes with higher Vo2 maxes benefitted less from EPO use than those who started with lower Vo2 maxes. The more talented athlete were (generally) benefitting less. Another observation of that study was that ectomorphic body types showed less increase than mesomorphic types. So, the variables on the exact advantage are endless and vary person to person (A BIG counterpoint to the argument that just letting everyone dope is fair).* I read this study in about 1995 and haven't seen it anywhere since, so i cant find a link, sorry.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

badge118 said:


> No I just know actual Doctor's of Sports Medicine and Oncologists.
> They probably know more about it than he does. Hell do you know some of the doping products used actually have VERY questionable use in sports doping? Doesn't stop em from using it does it? Try talking to real experts and real research not sports personalities. Even though I like JV he is one of the guys on the receiving end.
> 
> I could go into the whole thing about how doping effectiveness is exaggerated by those who do it to justify their doping and/or to encourage others to join them (guilty people love company) but you seem to pretty much have your mind made up so I am not going to waste my time anymore. Enjoy your time in the land of the blind.


You right on most points, as is JV. Doctors are right on how the body responds to drugs and what not. But that always does not mean they know who it applies to sports performance.

It's all about HOW and WHY the body responds to drugs. Cycling also seems to be VERY different when it comes to drug response in sport.

As with most drugs, doping does not make you hit the ball farther, run faster, etc. You still need that talent. You still need the other factors. Doping enhances those factors and aids in recovery.

Bonds would still have hit all those home runs. Maybe not as far and as many, but he STILL had better talent for it than anyone else.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

DIRT BOY said:


> You right on most points, as is JV. Doctors are right on how the body responds to drugs and what not. But that always does not mean they know who it applies to sports performance.
> 
> It's all about HOW and WHY the body responds to drugs. Cycling also seems to be VERY different when it comes to drug response in sport.
> 
> ...


Did you read anything before you wrote this? JV is saying that in actual fact you don't need the raw ability to get the improvement from drugs. It doesn't work like doping gives you x% on top of the y% you already have so if you're the best already and then dope you'll still be the best. But apparently you agree with what JV says whilst completely disagreeing. 

Also, a comparison to baseball is inane. Baseball involves timing and hand-eye coordination that have very little impact in a three week GT for GC competitors. Cycling is an endurance event, not one where you stand still and see how far you can hit a ball. 

I think I preferred it when all the Pharmboys were on the same page of "Lance didn't dope." It's very confusing working out which are in what stage of this process - 
"Lance never doped"
"This is a witch hunt and every one of those witnesses is just bitter"
"Ok he doped but so did everybody else so it made no difference" 
"Yes he doped but the process is unfair"
"Who cares if he doped, he is saving the world from cancer"
"Who cares if he doped, cyclings big in America now"
"He shouldn't be stripped because we don't know who to give the titles to"


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

roddjbrown said:


> Did you read anything before you wrote this? JV is saying that in actual fact you don't need the raw ability to get the improvement from drugs. It doesn't work like doping gives you x% on top of the y% you already have so if you're the best already and then dope you'll still be the best. But apparently you agree with what JV says whilst completely disagreeing.
> 
> Also, a comparison to baseball is inane. Baseball involves timing and hand-eye coordination that have very little impact in a three week GT for GC competitors. Cycling is an endurance event, not one where you stand still and see how far you can hit a ball.
> 
> ...


Yes I did and did you read my post? It's all about GENETICS and HOW the body responds to doping. That's a fact!

So if two cyclists have the same raw ability, same genetics, etc and doped, they playing field should be level. Now it comes down to training, tactics, hard work, etc! But how your body relishes to drugs and what it does with it make the world of difference.

I guess you dot get what I mean with baseball. How about body building to an extent. Said person responds well to doping, yet I win be Mr Olympia no matter how much doping or training said does. !said person does not have the genetic make to be one. But a guys with less drugs and better genetics could.

Better correlation? But giving a crappy rider drugs, even if he responds like a super human to it, still won't make him the best rider, period. I don't care how much better his endurance is. He still has to be the BEST rider, coached, tactics, etc! This is what JV fails to mention. It's not all about dope and this is where is sour grapes come out.

I have said I since day one. Cancer changed Lance doping or not. Yes, I think he doped. Bu I think something is his recovery drug treatment changes things as well. Then his new dropping routine and dr ferrari made him even stronger.

Again, look at LA post cancer and pre cancer. I wonder if some of the drugs he took for cancer, might. Have been experimental and helped?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

cda 455 said:


> With all due respect, cycling doesn't care much either.
> 
> 
> If cycling were serious, they'd have career-end penalties for being found positive. It's just that simple.
> ...


How many cyclists have been busted? A lot. How many football and baseball players have been busted for steroid use? Five or six?


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

DIRT BOY said:


> So if two cyclists have the same raw ability, same genetics, etc and doped, they playing field should be level. Now it comes down to training, tactics, hard work, etc! But how your body relishes to drugs and what it does with it make the world of difference.


Well 

1) Only if they're on the same doping program and the accusations are that quite clearly Lance was not on the same program as everyone else

2) You're kind of proving the point that everyone is making. Everyone's body responds (I presume this is what you mean by the word "relishes") differently to drugs as you say. This is why doping can create the best rider out of someone who would not otherwise necessarily have been the best. So thanks for solidifying that.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

spade2you said:


> How many cyclists have been busted? A lot. How many football and baseball players have been busted for steroid use? Five or six?


Baseball has only been testing for the last 4-5 years, so that comparison isn't valid. Not sure when the NFL started testing for PEDs. Also bear in mind that reliable testing for HGH hasn't been around for very long, and that was probably the drug of choice among football players after steroid testing was instituted. And consider all of the old NFL players who died prematurely from cancer or other steroid-related maladies in their 50s. People like Lyle Alzedo.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

spade2you said:


> How many cyclists have been busted? A lot. How many football and baseball players have been busted for steroid use? Five or six?


That's funny. You have a pretty selective view of drug testing. Here's some reading material to broaden your horizons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_suspended_for_performance-enhancing_drugs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_sport


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

djg21 said:


> I don't think he would have had ample team support to win 7 Tours if his team wasn't systematically doping.


excellent point


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

*East Bloc & Soviet era. Major transformation.*

Dope can and has proven to dramatically change the physiology of a person. 

Doping has many many levels, from the highschool gym level all the way to world-class R&D type of level. Armstrong had access to the best of the best, all the way up to Bristol Meyers. In hingsight, Armstrong's program was probably at the frontier, bleeding-edge. It was not just at the frontier of technicality, but at a frontier of systematic team doping in cycling.

At the level that Armstrong was doping, the question is no longer about natural ability or genetic makeups; the question then becomes how far does one want to push the envelop? The holy grail would be: "How far could science change the makeups of an athlete and still go undetectable by the authorities?"

Based on my understand of biology, and based on evidence that I've read about doping of the Eastern Bloc swimmers back in the 70s and 80s,.. it is apparent to me that science can change the fundamental makeups of a human pretty DAMN GOOD.

First of all, let's look at the biology of human. Yes, we are strongly governed by our DNA. But both males and females have characteristics of the other. If you give a male enough estrogen, you can effectively turn him into a female, and vice versa, if a female is given enough testosterone, she will become a male. External stimuli can and do override our DNA.

As evidence, look at the East Bloc doping of their swimmers, particularly the female swimmers. The doping program was so extensive, so systematic, so brutally experimental, that some of those females have pretty been permanently transformed into males. People started noticing this, started questioning their performances (this is even before they had virtually change to a male), as some of their performances actually beating out the guys! Other female athletes from other nations reporting that they heard a man's voice in the lockerroom. Yet, at the time of competition, they were not detected. Because detection method was weak (detection always seem to lag behind, doesn't it?), they were deemed clean. "No proof", right?? Today, there is still no proof of anything. But we all know this is not case. These athletes have come out and told it all. It was on a documentary program on PBS.

Now the doping was also going on with the males too, but the method of doping at the time had a greater effect on females. I said this to bring up a point that has been repeated in here by some frequent posters. That is to say, the effectiveness of a program can be largely dependent on the subject(s). Science has proven that a highly specialized doping program taylored for an individual can dramatically transform that individual. Treating females with excessive testosterone is one combination that has proven to produced such strong transformation, but this is a crude method. But there is no reason not to think that there aren't anyone other combination of drug/program out there that could produce something along this line. This is after all what the progress of science is all about.

So the playing field was definitely not leveled as many suggested. I would classify Armstrong's program to be in the same league as the East Bloc program, while the rest of his competitors were doping along the level of a "college football" level. Whatever remains of the peloton, the "clean guys", were probably doping along the line of highschool football (they get what they can, and just resign with it).


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

> Nope.
> 
> Fignon' time of 41:50 was from French TV and compared to Pantani's on the same time checks, 36:50. While some measure from the round about these times were taken from left that starts the climb
> 
> Just because you are confused does not mean the experts are. Climb after climb saw a 10-15% decrease in the space of a few years. Furlan still has the fastest time up the Poggio, Thanks Dr. Ferrari


And Doc, we do NOT have the start location for the Fignon time. So what if it was on french TV. If the physical location where the stop watch started is not known the time is useless as a metric for comparison for anything that is pretending to be objective beyond saying something vague like "dope had something to do with it." One can not say "dope is worth X % of improvement" in this circumstance. I thought you were smarter than this.


----------



## EpicX (Mar 11, 2002)

pure speculation below. I've lurked here a long time, but I figured I'd make one large post and bow out.

I've always thought cancer was the best thing that happened to LA's career, and it wasn't because of the much hyped loss of upper body muscle. For months he was in expensive treatment and exposed to very slick and streamlined medical care. It had to be an eye opener what kind of program you could have with enough money to burn. I'd bet more than one doctor or nurse had some leading questions about potential PEDs from LA disguised as a natural curiosity about what was being injected (like the EPO), how it was done, doseages, alternatives/similar drugs. 

Without cancer I think he'd have been a slightly above average one day racer or stage hunter and would probably have gotten busted at some point. 

To the question at hand I've got a few answers:

No cancer - I don't think he could have won the TDF. Ever.
Post-cancer, no doping - Maybe 1, just for the fact that he IS incredibly driven, loves to prove people wrong and did have a slightly improved power/weight ratio.
Post cancer doped alone - Maybe 2 or even 3.
Post cancer doped along w/ team - 7 consecutive wins. I just don't see it happening otherwise.

It's all disappointing, and I can see where the LA/Livestrong fans are coming from. I was on the LA train those first 3 or 4 wins too, but at 5,6,7 I really had a hard time believing the story anymore. Too many rumors, too many top 10 racers busted, too many Postal teammates leaving and getting busted for the same kinds of doping LA was accused of. Let's be honest here, it strains credulity to think all those former teammates came up with similar doping regimes on their own. Much more plausible that they emulated the Postal methods, got sloppy and got busted.

I've followed racing since the mid-80's and you know what's normal and what's not. Yes, sometimes people have superhuman DAYS, maybe even several within a period. To have an entire team, on the form of a lifetime and head and shoulders above the best in the world, for 3 weeks straight, for 7 years in a row... well, I suppose it could happen, there are supposed to be an infinite number of monkey's somewhere writing Shakespeare too, but the odds? 

Why couldn't LA do a Larry Bird or Magic Johnson? Just go out on top and fade away. None of this would have come up w/out his 'comeback tour'...

my .02


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

What's the difference between Studio Professional/dramatic wrestling and real wrestling? We need to bring cycling back to the real world. Is it a win doped? Is it a home run record doped? 'course not. That's why there are sporting fraud cases in Europe. Why they do not have them here since we're so litigous, I can't figure out.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

aclinjury said:


> excellent point


I think it's a much hyped point. It's rare that the strongest guy in a GT doesn't win whether on a weak team or strong team. Armstrong was far and away the strongest rider in all his Tour wins but one or two.

You could have put him on the weakest team in the race and he almost certainly would have still won the race.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

spade2you said:


> Cycling just _looks_ bad. Baseball and football simply don't care to catch people. I highly doubt most linebackers could pass a urine test if they studied for weeks.


Also, if you are talking about the US, the media here still largely treats cycling as a stupid thing that people do riding toys. They treat it as a joke and are unwilling to discredit their precious football, a "real" sport.


----------



## needlotsofhelp (Aug 30, 2012)

not a chance


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

spade2you said:


> How many cyclists have been busted? A lot. How many football and baseball players have been busted for steroid use? Five or six?


For sake of simplicity, you have a good point. 

But so what  ?



cda 455 said:


> With all due respect, cycling doesn't care much either.
> 
> 
> _*If cycling were serious, they'd have career-end penalties for being found positive. It's just that simple.
> ...


Now how about addressing my two highlighted points? 


Which is where I draw my first statement's conclusion from.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Well there is a law actually...The Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990 added Anabolic steroids to the DEA drug schedule, until then they were largely uncontrolled. Did you see any of the people in the BALCO case get charged with illegal drug possession? No. I'll get into why below. As for straight up sporting fraud alla Euro countries. TBH if the anti-doping regime is going to have a snowballs chance in hell of working they need to do it but when do you see the Federal Gov't passing a law that is going to have to rely on standards based on a foreign NGO's rules?

Over all it is an interesting conundrum actually. When I look at my HR, Power, Speed and all the other data when I am using certain "legal" supplements and when I am not, it is clear the legal supplement's boost my performance. Hell as a test I checked what happens when I use my sport drink and just water. It is the same when I put my Reynolds 46's on my bike vs my HED ardennes. All of these produce benefits that are rather scary noticeable actually.

So the question is where do you draw that line? I really think the legal supplement industry is at least to blame in part. People get inundated with adds for increasing your testosterone and other enhancements and then say "what the hell is the big deal." If the various performance enhancing drugs were not covered under the DEA Schedule requiring a Dr. Rx I would be dollars to donuts no one would care that baseball players juiced and in a lot of countries you can just walk in and buy this stuff off the shelf. One of the main driving forces behind the anabolic act had NOTHING to do with actual dangers of steroids, most of the dangerous ones were actually individually under the act already, those you could get at your local supplement store were those deemed having no danger to public health. Passing that Act had everything to do with sport. Since the American people gave too damns about using such things is sport as is, make them illegal because Americans are damn quick to pounce on the use of illegal drugs without knowing the pharmachology behind them.

If you look at the foundation of all of that it is not that people think Bonds or whoever actually "cheated" it's that they used illegal drugs to increase their performance. The average American, though they will rarely admit it, relates much more to this Vince Lombardi quote



> Winning isn't everything, it is the only thing.


than the other well know quote



> It does not matter how many times you get knocked down, but how many times you get up


This attitude, and it is NOT strictly an American one if we are honest, along with continual advances in science in general are among many of the things that make me say in my life time there will be papers published entitled "The failed attempt to regulate pharmacutical and genetic supplementation in the late 20th and early 21st Century."


----------

