# Assessing Lance's natural talent and does he have "The Bug"



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

This is a thread that is concerned with Lance's *UNJACKED natural talent* as a rider.
Yes he has talent...but how much in a natural undoped state?
...and how much gain did he get from jacking? Did he respond better to drug therapy than most?

*One thing is absolutely stone.....universal doping does not "even the playing field" in sport....not a chance.*



A good fellow said the following....


*Originally Posted by Einstruzende
Would you say that if every rider was truly clean, that the hierarchy would be roughly the same? I'm sure that all the EPO and blood and whatever else can't turn the average guy into Cipo at his height. When it comes right down to it, you still have to be genetically gifted, right?*


I would say that you are correct for the most part.....but I will let you in on something that is actually not well known at all(some guys on this forum know). Everyone responds differently to drug therapy ad ESPECIALLY red cell jacking. But the same can be said of low dose test gel, HGH and IGF-1 and insulin for recovery reasons...some guys get a far greater response.

Here is the "general" tail of the tape in regards to what makes the MOST difference in performance....a jacked red cell count.

At 50% crit most guys can manage a 12% gain in sustainable power with hard training. That makes your 5 minute VO2 repeats power your one hour power!!!
(highly trained aerobic athletes have low natural crits...in the neighborhood of 39-44% with most being 40-42%)
Most guys at 55% can squeak out 13-15% but a few can get 20%
Few guys go above 55-56% but some do and some of those can easily get 20%....that's a hell of a lot! Repeatabilty goes through the roof too.

I am certain that "Lance" got a 20% increase in sustainable power from a jacked red cell count ALONE!( epo use alone early on and then blood doping too). His repeatability was freaky too and that makes a huge difference as well.

Proof in the pudding can be seen in Lance Armstrong's *pre Ferarri * racing stats and in his VO2 max. His pre Fararri VO2 max was only 82 which is good but not great. Literally DOZENS of riders had a higher VO2 max. Lemond, who truly missed the epo boat from 91 onward, was a true freak with a VO2 max of 92.5!!!
After expert tinkering by Fararri, and the backing of the best doping program known to man(Postal/Disco), and some weight loss, Lance becomes a total freak.

I am absolutely convinced that not all the top riders would be at the top if everyone was clean. It is my opinion that Lance would not have broken the top 50 if all were clean....this is not all speculation because we know his pre Ferarri VO2 max and his pre Ferarri race results....and NO, loosing 10-12 pounds would not make the difference....that would not bring his sustainable wattage per kilo(one hour power) to 6.7 watts per kilo or higher!!!

For those that say sustainable power at threshold per kilo trumps VO2 max I will say this....yes that is true BUT it is VO2 max that sets the threshold ceiling. Well trained riders with VO2 maxes of 85-92 would have a higher sustainable wattage per kilo than Armstrong...NO question at all.


For those that say his 2nd placing recently at the Leadville 100, after not racing since 05, is proof that he is a super *natural* talent I will say this....*do you really think in a million years that Lance would race this race totally clean and risk his reputation*. He was making a clear statement in this race. There was no OOC testing for the riders in this race..you could easily jack to 55% with epo and just stop the hormone a few days out and not test positive(if they even test for epo which I doubt).

I hope he gets serious about racing again and my gut feeling is that he has "the bug" and his ego wants him to race, unlikely some one day classics, or more realistically get into pro triathlons or Exterra in which testing is a joke. I want his ass caught or at least humiliated in racing. He won't have the backing of the best doping program of all time in Postal/Disco....but darn you Eddy Mercyx for introducing him to Ferarri....Lance will still have a few Ferarri tricks up his sleeve.

Lance *pre Ferarri.*....Indurain passes him like I would pass my wife. I did a rough estimate of the power difference between Armstrong and Indurain from the speed at which Indurain passes Armstrong. I estimate that Indurain was cranking out over 125 watts more power than Armstrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb1EYB-VzVI


OK I don't like the man. He didn't say jack to me or any of my buddies at a Rocky Mountain charity ride years ago, and in fact everyone was grumbling about how much of a dick he was(but George and Phil Liggett were great!)

Don't flame me for disliking this ass.....and NO Lance I don't believe in your miracle. *Even though I don't like him I have kept my opinion on his natural undoped talent objective.*

Nuff said 


Cheers


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

It does make sense that doping as different effects on people. I have anecdotal evidence with Novocaine. It doesn't numb me very well, and it wears off fast, while my wife can have one shot and be numb for 3 or 4 hours.

With Riccardo Ricco, I have to imagine that totally clean he'd still probably ride most cyclists into the ground on a mountain.

What pisses me off is swimming (right now). I was talking to my brother today, and he was raving about how great the US swimmers are (Phelps especially). He told me I was full of crap when I suggest they in all likely hood every guy in the pool was probably jacked on something. He honestly believes most athletes are clean, except for cycling. Why? Because you only ever hear of cycling drug busts on ESPN.


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

Einstruzende said:


> It does make sense that doping as different effects on people. I have anecdotal evidence with Novocaine. It doesn't numb me very well, and it wears off fast, while my wife can have one shot and be numb for 3 or 4 hours.
> 
> With Riccardo Ricco, I have to imagine that totally clean he'd still probably ride most cyclists into the ground on a mountain.
> 
> What pisses me off is swimming (right now). I was talking to my brother today, and he was raving about how great the US swimmers are (Phelps especially). He told me I was full of crap when I suggest they in all likely hood every guy in the pool was probably jacked on something. He honestly believes most athletes are clean, except for cycling. Why? Because you only ever hear of cycling drug busts on ESPN.



My best friend was a 400IM Olympian....he says that Phelps is jacked for sure and it's not because of the number of Golds that he has but rather it is because how he totally destroys records. He said that in swimming records are broken by 10th's of seconds and not by the margins Phelps has accomplished over the last 4 years.

The human body can only get "so good" unjacked. His record breaking is akin to this....
in the late 80's riders where going up mountain passes in the upper 300 watt range. Lemond, the total natural freak with a VO2 max of 92.5, could not break 390 watts sustained up these climbs at 148 pounds. A few years later some of these same guys were going up the same passes at well over 400 watts.....*epo had arrived*

I will tell you one thing...it is very very easy to blood dope with your own blood. If you know what you are doing you simply cannot be caught. The advantage you have over those with natural crits is STAGGERING to say the least.

Most swimming events require a high VO2 max(save for 50 meter sprints...but they require a decent VO2 max because they are over 15 seconds long). The 400IM, which is considered "THE event" in swimming is an all out 4 minute maximum aerobic capacity interval...a very high VO2 max is required to be successful. By 90 seconds the body is running at 100% VO2 max! A high crit increases VO2 max ALARMINGLY.
Even a two minute all out race see the athlete derive most of the power he needs from aerobic metabolism and NOT anaerobic work capacity.

*Gone are the days that a clean super talented aerobic athlete could beat a doped talented aerobic athlete.* *This is why we need to do a total body hemoglobin right beofre each race...it just takes a minute to get the blood and no amount of hemodilution with bolus's of saline and volume expanders like Hespan cab scew the results.
*

Cheers


----------



## TheDon (Feb 3, 2006)

How did you come to the difference between Lance and Indurain? Curious what your calculations were.


----------



## jim392 (May 30, 2007)

how are you so sure that Lermond never doped with his own blood? or took steroids to recover for that matter


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

jim392 said:


> how are you so sure that Lermond never doped with his own blood? or took steroids to recover for that matter


I think all RealGains stated was that LeMond missed (or chose to miss) the EPO train in the early 90s. I suppose it's a very real possibility that he could have used something for recovery, or amphetamines like riders have done for decades, however those things don't give the same "boost" that EPO or good blood doping can give.

I'm not an expert by the way, just been reading RealGain's posts for a better understanding, and that's how I see things.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

Realgains said:


> My best friend was a 400IM Olympian....he says that Phelps is jacked for sure and it's not because of the number of Golds that he has but rather it is because how he totally destroys records. He said that in swimming records are broken by 10th's of seconds and not by the margins Phelps has accomplished over the last 4 years.


Let's look at Phelp's records, shall we? They contradict your statement.

200m Freestyle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_record_progression_200_metres_freestyle
1:44.06 Thorpe, Ian 2001-07-25 25 
1:43.86 Phelps, Michael 02007-03-27 27 March 2007
*So, Phelps dropped the record a WHOPPING 0.2 seconds when he first took the record.
*

200m Butterfly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_record_progression_200_metres_butterfly
1:55.18 Tom Malchow June 17, 2000 
1:54.92 Michael Phelps March 30, 2001
*In this case, the record dropped by 0.26 seconds.
*

200m IM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_record_progression_200_metres_medley
1:58.16 Jani Sievinen September 11, 1994
1:57.94 Michael Phelps June 29, 2003
*Drop of 0.22 seconds.*

400m IM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_record_progression_400_metres_medley
4:11.76 Tom Dolan September 17, 2000 
4:11.09 Michael Phelps August 15, 2002
*0.67 seconds.*

If you look at Phelp's subsequent records, they are by and large incremental improvements involving--tenths of seconds--on the old records. Whether Phelps dopes is one thing. *But you (and your friend) are simply making statements that are factually incorrect regarding a pattern of Phelps 'smashing' records. *His new WR in the 200m fly is only 0.06 seconds faster than his old record.


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

jim392 said:


> how are you so sure that Lermond never doped with his own blood? or took steroids to recover for that matter


I am not totally sure BUT....
IF Lemond took epo or blood doped he would have destroyed the 91 tour. In shape Lemod had a very very high VO2 max(nobody higher) at 92.5...and he knew how to train to peak his threshold power. He said he was in the best shape of his life (since his first TDF win) and in way better shape than in his last win(90). The very fact that both he(and Fignon) got 7th and 6th respectively, and they were BY FAR the most talented riders in the Peloton, proves that both had normal crits....at least to me.
Lemond was only years old and Fignon was only 31...so they were not at the end of their careers.

Now blood doping might have been used in the 80's in the tour and especially since the US Olympic team blood doped with some success in 84...but I don't think it was used in pro cycling until after the epo test was formulated....I could be wrong though.

Indurain was a bloody machine yet he was not considered a threat to won the tour that year even though he was good and had to work for his team leader the previous year.
The clear favorites that year were Lemond and Fignon and Bugno(one of first to use epo).

Now Lemond says that he never took anything except things that were required for medical reasons(and he mentioned some an iron shot)....but I find it hard to believe that he was totally clean. Corticoids were like candy back then and they offer a pretty good performance boost indeed...nothing like a high crit but pretty good none the less. HGH , testosterone and steroids were also well used but these just help recovery and don't directly increase sustainable power like epo, blood doping or corticoids(like the one Lance had in his blood from that saddle cream ...cough cough 
They also had amphetamines and ephedrine and asthma brocho dilators like Ventolin that can increase sustainable power a bit via "opening up the lungs" and increase cardiac output a bit....but they don't actually work that great.


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

jorgy said:


> Let's look at Phelp's records, shall we? They contradict your statement.
> 
> 200m Freestyle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_record_progression_200_metres_freestyle
> 1:44.06 Thorpe, Ian 2001-07-25 25
> ...



*Why have you highjacked this thread...we are not talking about doped up Phelps.....but since you are being a jerk I will do one "come back"....then please stay on track with the discussion about "Lance".*



My best friend, former 400IM Olympian....said that Phelps took almost 1 second off his former world record time in the 200 free.....and 1.5 seconds off his former world record 400IM time. My buddy is laughing and shaking his head as I write this...he says these things are just not done.

*****He went on to say that Phelps is swimming about 20 races in total for the week .....and he recovers totally to continue to break world records in all these events. His recovery ability is UNREAL..
My buddy said that he, an elite unjecked 400 IM swimmer that also raced a few other events, had a hard time recovering for ONE event.

*Do you know that it takes 5 days for an unjacked man to recover from an all out 2-4 minute effort.* Look it up in the sport science journals if you don't believe me. Phelps recovers well because he is jacked on HGH and IGF-1, both cannot be detected. Do you know that you can take pure unesterfied testosterone daily in gel or patch form and NOT GET BUSTED!
*Have you ever done an all out 4 minute effort...serious..have you? I am not talking about a 4 minute VO2 max interval repeat, I am talking about a 4 minute all out effort. If you really and truly have done this, in a race situation, then you would know for a certainty that Phelps has JACKED his recovery ability with at least 4-6 units a day of HGH!( undetectable)! *



My buddy goes on to say that it is SOOO obvious within the swimming world that Phelps is jacked that it isn't funny. My buddy goes on to say that YOU are no high level swmmer and probably no swimmer at all.

He goes to say that Phelps's 400 IM time is 15 seconds faster than the man he calls "a God" at the peak of natural human performance, Alex Baumann (who was almost certainly clean). These things are not done without dope. 

Baumann's time was 4:17.41, and you are telling me that Phelps went 15 seconds faster, in an event that takes a little over 4 minute to race,....unjacked!?

*Buddy, swimmers have been using epo and blood doping for many many years.* This is why the records have fallen like stone and the time of the once Godlike Baumann is now a joke. In the last 6 years new and improved dope has come on the market to make thins worse(not better). Do you know how many products increase O2 carrying capacity and CANNOT be tested for? 


*Wake up and smell the coffee jorgy...they have all "pulling the wool over your eyes!*

Lets say Phelps is unjacked......*would you admit that their are talented swimmer that do jack? *If this is the case then an unjacked very talented man like Phelps would have *NO CHANCE IN HELL *against an jacked talented man. I know this because I have experienced the power of a high crit and the recovery power of HGH and IGF-1 first hand. If the complete freak Greg Lemond with the second highest recorded VO2 max of all time (any sport) at 92.5( record is 93) then Phelps sure the hell can't and especially since the 400IM is a full out maximum aerobic capacity effort..the greatest test known to man of max aerobic power(VO2 max) is a 4-6 minute all out effort.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Realgains said:


> *Why have you highjacked this thread...we are not talking about doped up Phelps.....but since you are being a jerk I will do one "come back"....then please stay on track with the discussion about "Lance".*
> 
> My best friend, former 400IM Olympian....said that Phelps took almost 1 second off his former world record time in the 200 free.....and 1.5 seconds off his former world record 400IM time. My buddy is laughing and shaking his head as I write this...he says these things are just not done.
> 
> ...


You and your friend have obviously never heard of Mark Spitz. Seven gold medals and seven world records at the 1972 Olympics. 

Well before EPO.
Well before HGH.

One man, seven gold medals, seven world records. How do you explain that, when you just told us Phelps can't possibly do the same thing without dope? 

Obviously, it can be done, because it has been done. 

Sorry, but you and your friend are full of ****.


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

mohair_chair said:


> You and your friend have obviously never heard of Mark Spitz. Seven gold medals and seven world records at the 1972 Olympics.
> 
> Well before EPO.
> Well before HGH.
> ...



I was waiting for someone to mention Spitz.  He was a true God of a man...and very likely clean too I think. But his times are Fredish now.....gee what happened? Did man evolve? Dis training change? HA! The truth is dope got very good.

*Back in his day a super talent like him could beat doped talented men because there was no HGH, no IGF-1 (for recovery reasons) and certainly no epo or blood doping or other undetectable 02 carrying drugs. ...and for the same reasons they could get get more than a couple Golds.
All they had was testosterone and steroid, none of which can match the recovery power found in HGH or IGF-1.
Those days are gone.*

You don't understand the power or these hormones mohair, because you have never used them. 

I ask you one thing... *do you think there are any talented swimmers that are jacked ?*
Maybe some Russians, Chinese, eastern Europeans...because after all we Americans are clean.. If you say yes there are some talented men that dope in swimming then be aware that a very talented man has *no chance in hell against a talented man doped with a high crit...no chance in hell.* To draw a parallel to your sport....clean Armstrong would not be able to reach top 50 in those tours and maybe not be able to finish at all....and he would be dropped within 10-20 minutes in a hard climb without any attacks no matter who tries to "drag" him up the hill. 

I am telling you the truth mohair....I know....I have "been there"..."done that". I know first hand the incredible power of these hormones!


*Damn.... I would like to keep on topic with "Lance"....flame me in this subject instead OK *

Cheers 



Cheer mohair


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

You tell me it can't be done, and I tell you it has been done. It's indisputable. There is no reason to think it can't be done again.


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

mohair_chair said:


> You tell me it can't be done, and I tell you it has been done. It's indisputable. There is no reason to think it can't be done again.


It was done before epo, blood doping, HGH, IGF-1, actovegin etc etc...on pure talent.

It can still be done but ONLY if you are jacked through the roof.....because you are racing against other talented men that ARE jacked. 



There is mohair......I am not trying to flame you...and I trying to be sincere but "frank". You don't understand because you have never been jacked. It cannot be done clean Mohair. as I have said ....a very talented man has no chance in hell against a talented guy with a jacked crit alone, let alone one that is also on recovery agents like HGH and IGF-1.

I respectfully ask you to ponder this question and give me answer...
.....*do you think there are any talented swimmers that are jacked ?*
Maybe some Russians, Chinese, eastern Europeans...because after all we Americans are clean.. If you say yes there are some talented men that dope in swimming then be aware that a very talented man has no chance in hell against a talented man doped with a high crit...no chance in hell. To draw a parallel to your sport....clean Armstrong would not be able to reach top 50 in those tours and maybe not be able to finish at all....and he would be dropped within 10-20 minutes in a hard climb without any attacks no matter who tries to "drag" him up the hill.


The power from a jacked crit is incredible...and repatabilty goes through the roof and it helps recovery too. This is just one mechanism...there are many many more(HGH, IGF-1, actovegin etc etc etc)

Cheers


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

*Dude, you brought up Phelps.*



Realgains said:


> Why have you highjacked this thread...we are not talking about doped up Phelps.....but since you are being a jerk I will do one "come back"....then please stay on track with the discussion about "Lance".


You 'hijacked' your own thread. Say Phelps' performance is skeptical. Fine. But you smeared Phelps in another thread using the same FAULTY and UNTRUE claim that he's 'smashing' world records. It ain't true and the wiki links with the world record progressions show it. So please stop repeating this BS. I've told you it's BS and I've provided you links that it's BS. I'll contact RBR's moderators if you continue to spout information that is CATEGORICALLY UNTRUE and that you know to be untrue.



> My best friend, former 400IM Olympian....said that Phelps took almost 1 second off his former world record time in the 200 free.....and 1.5 seconds off his former world record 400IM time. My buddy is laughing and shaking his head as I write this...he says these things are just not done.


Look at the links I provided in the previous post in this sub-thread.
200m free-Phelps' most recent improvement, which happened in the Cube, was 0.90 seconds. Thorpe improved on van den Hoogenband's record by 0.66 seconds and then improved on his own record by 0.63 seconds.

400m IM-Phelps' most recent improvement, also in the Cube, was 1.41 seconds. Darnyi improved his own record back in 1991 by 2.39 seconds.



> *****He went on to say that Phelps is swimming about 20 races in total for the week .....and he recovers totally to continue to break world records in all these events. His recovery ability is UNREAL..
> My buddy said that he, an elite unjecked 400 IM swimmer that also raced a few other events, had a hard time recovering for ONE event.


Yep, and notice his 200m butterfly record only improved by 0.06 seconds; the NY Times article described his performance as 'sluggish.'



> Do you know that it takes 5 days for an unjacked man to recover from an all out 2-4 minute effort. Look it up in the sport science journals if you don't believe me. Phelps recovers well because he is jacked on HGH and IGF-1, both cannot be detected. Do you know that you can take pure unesterfied testosterone daily in gel or patch form and NOT GET BUSTED!


I suspect you'd provide citations if such ones actually existed. What is meant by 'recovery' anyway? That has to be defined before a discussion even takes place. And, yep, I know HGH can't currently be detected. As far as testosterone, yea, I know that if you're not a dumb ass like Landis and leave the patch on too long it's easy to stay under the 4:1 test:epi threshold that triggers a positive. Whoopde****ingdoo!



> Have you ever done an all out 4 minute effort...serious..have you? I am not talking about a 4 minute VO2 max interval repeat, I am talking about a 4 minute all out effort. If you really and truly have done this, in a race situation, then you would know for a certainty that Phelps has JACKED his recovery ability with at least 4-6 units a day of HGH!( undetectable)!


Completely irrelevant. How I recover, which is without the aid of a chiropractor, massage therapist, etc. is completely irrelevant to how a young man of 23 who has an army of folks to help him would recover.



> My buddy goes on to say that it is SOOO obvious within the swimming world that Phelps is jacked that it isn't funny. My buddy goes on to say that YOU are no high level swmmer and probably no swimmer at all.


And your buddy is a joke. Of course I'm not a high level swimmer. But I did start swimming years before I ran or rode a bike; a proverbial fish. And I've probably been watching Olympic swimming longer than you or your buddy have been alive.



> He goes to say that Phelps's 400 IM time is 15 seconds faster than the man he calls "a God" at the peak of natural human performance, Alex Baumann (who was almost certainly clean). These things are not done without dope. Baumann's time was 4:17.41, and you are telling me that Phelps went 15 seconds faster, in an event that takes a little over 4 minute to race,....unjacked!?


Baumann held the record in the 400m IM for about 3 years in the mid-80s. Of course he's a god to your friend; there aren't many world-record holders in swimming that have been Canadian. Three people held it before Phelps got it in 2002 and he's dropped the record incrementally 7 times since then. The '15 seconds' didn't happen in one fell swoop.



> Buddy, swimmers have been using epo and blood doping for many many years. This is why the records have fallen like stone and the time of the once Godlike Baumann is now a joke. In the last 6 years new and improved dope has come on the market to make thins worse(not better). Do you know how many products increase O2 carrying capacity and CANNOT be tested for?
> 
> Lets say Phelps is unjacked......would you admit that their are talented swimmer that do jack? If this is the case then an unjacked very talented man like Phelps would have NO CHANCE IN HELL against an jacked talented man. I know this because I have experienced the power of a high crit and the recovery power of HGH and IGF-1 first hand. If the complete freak Greg Lemond with the second highest recorded VO2 max of all time (any sport) at 92.5( record is 93) then Phelps sure the hell can't and especially since the 400IM is a full out maximum aerobic capacity effort..the greatest test known to man of max aerobic power(VO2 max) is a 4-6 minute all out effort.


Riddle me this: JANET EVANS. 800m record from 1989--before the EPO era--still stands today. What was she jacked on? Why haven't any of the dopers from the last 20 years broken her record if it is IMPOSSIBLE for a naturally talented athlete to beat a jacked one (corollary is that the records of the naturally talented should fall to jacked athletes). Evans' 1500m record from 1988 only fell last year and her 400m record from 1988 only fell in 2006. You claimed the 4 minute effort is special. Why didn't hers fall a lot sooner? All Evans' records are pre the EPO era. Plus, they are long distance events--ones that should theoretically benefit the most from EPO use and blood doping. Why didn't they fall during the glory days of EPO use?

And as far as LeMond's reported VO2 max of 92.5--I'm skeptical the test was done properly. Funny you're so critical of 'suspect' performances that you would accept this value uncritically.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

*Two words: JANET EVANS*

90 pound sprite of a girl kicked some doped up East German ass. Her 400m, 800m and 1600m records all survived the EPO era, something that should not happen in your world.


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

*1989...blood doping era in Olympic sport, and also the beginnings of epo era in some aerobic sports.*

I will ask again....and leave it at that.

I ask you to ponder this question and give me answer...
....*.do you think there are any talented swimmers that are jacked ?*
Maybe some Russians, Italians, Chinese, eastern Europeans...because after all we Americans are clean.. If you say yes there are some talented men that dope in swimming then be aware that a very talented man has* no chance in hell *against a talented man doped with a high crit.*..no chance in hell*. To draw a parallel to your sport....clean Armstrong would not be able to reach top 50 in those tours and maybe not be able to finish at all....and he would be dropped within 10-20 minutes in a hard climb without any attacks no matter who tries to "drag" him up the hill.


The power from a jacked crit is incredible...and repeatabilty goes through the roof and it helps recovery too. *This is just one mechanism...there are many many more(HGH, IGF-1, actovegin etc etc etc)*

*You just can't understand because you have never raced at the elite level and you have never doped* . I am glad that there are some that have never doped that can see through the fog but you unfortunately are not one of these people. You, and those like you, perpetuate myths and uphold the dopers claims of cleanliness.

Go ahead, believe that Phelps is clean...that's exactly what he and guys like Armstrong want you to think.

Phelps breaks the world record in the 200 fly today...for the 8th F-ing time, after breaking other records....but he is totally clean right? What a joke! *He is racing against talented men that are jacked!...but he kicks their asses totally clean. No clue...no clue whatever.
*

OH...and I have more knowledge in regards to training, coaching and sports science in my baby finger than you have in your entire body so don't ridicule me about "recovery".

Cheers flamer....


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Mark Spitz 1972 WR 200m freestyle time - 1:52.78
Michael Phelps 2008 WR 200m freestyle time - 1:42.96

I don't know if he dopes or not, but that's a 9% improvement in 36 years.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

Realgains said:


> 1989...blood doping era in Olympic sport, and also the beginnings of epo era in some aerobic sports.
> 
> You just can't understand because you have never raced at the elite level.
> 
> ...


So now you're pushing back the EPO era to 1989? Earlier you pegged it at 1991. Are you really suggesting that a high schooler had access to just-FDA approved EPO in 1989? What about 87 or 88 when it wasn't approved for use in the US yet? Her 400m and 1500m records, were first set in 1987, broke by her in 1988 and stood until 2006 and 2007, respectively. And get this, in 1988 she set records in the 800m and 1600m within days of one another. Impossible!

And I can't understand what? Just because I pointed out that you were posting incorrect information doesn't mean I think everyone or all Americans are clean. Quite an illogical leap there. Fact is you post BS, I called you on it and then you have to make up things about me thinking all Americans are clean and call me names like FRED and HOMER and a flamer. I'm a chick. Call me a flamer all you want, it ain't gonna get me jacked up. More likely it'll give me a laugh. See I'm not all jacked up on testosterone, natural or otherwise, like yourself.


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

DrSmile said:


> Mark Spitz 1972 WR 200m freestyle time - 1:52.78
> Michael Phelps 2008 WR 200m freestyle time - 1:42.96
> 
> I don't know if he dopes or not, but that's a 9% improvement in 36 years.


Thanx for chiming in....I need a few "civil" men on this thread.

That 10 seconds is a HUGE margin for such a short event....HUGE. 
If he did dope, and he may have, the dope at his disposal was PEANUTS compared to a high crit, not to mention HGH and IGF-1 and Actovegin, Hemopure, Oxyglobin......every few years better dope becomes available.



Remember, blood doping in the Olympics started for sure in 84 with the admission from the US cycling team. The eastern block countries might have been using is sooner than that. Doping in the Olympics has a long long history...just like in cycling.

If millions are to be had in sport then the athletes will dope.....and not just a few.

Cheers


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

jorgy said:


> So now you're pushing back the EPO era to 1989? Earlier you pegged it at 1991. Are you really suggesting that a high schooler had access to just-FDA approved EPO in 1989? What about 87 or 88 when it wasn't approved for use in the US yet? Her 400m and 1500m records, were first set in 1987, broke by her in 1988 and stood until 2006 and 2007, respectively. And get this, in 1988 she set records in the 800m and 1600m within days of one another. Impossible!
> 
> And I can't understand what? Just because I pointed out that you were posting incorrect information doesn't mean I think everyone or all Americans are clean. Quite an illogical leap there. Fact is you post BS, I called you on it and then you have to make up things about me thinking all Americans are clean and call me names like FRED and HOMER and a flamer. I'm a chick. Call me a flamer all you want, it ain't gonna get me jacked up. More likely it'll give me a laugh. See I'm not all jacked up on testosterone, natural or otherwise, like yourself.


Hey...I am sorry if I have come across harshly.....really....but I feel that you have been a flamer.  I have made some mistakes about exact times and records with Phelps but that doesn't warrant flames.

But this is what I said...
*1989...blood doping era in Olympic sport, and also the beginnings of epo era in some aerobic sports.*

*I said that the first epo tour was 1991..*

..*.and by the way epo has been available since the 70's...who cares if it was not FDA approved till 89 in the USA. I do not believe that it was used in sport until the late 80's and not in cycling until 91.
*
I thought we were talking about a jacked up Phelps anyway

you still have not answered the question
I ask you to ponder this question and give me answer...
.....*do you think there are any talented swimmers that are jacked* ?
If you say yes there are some talented men(or ladies) that dope in swimming then be aware that a very talented man or lady has no chance in hell against a talented man doped with a high crit...no chance in hell. 


If you think Phelps is clean that's fine with me.....this is just a discussion forum anyway.
Just ponder my question and believe me when I tell you what a jacked crit can do.....I am not stretching the truth. Then think about a man 100% clean breaking the world record in the 200 fly for the 8th time....against certainly "some "talented men that are dopers.

Believe me when I say that I am not flaming you but ....You don't understand because you have never competed at the elite level and you have never doped. If you did we would not be going back and forth like this.


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

Can we talk about Lance's natural talent level now  


Thanx


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

Dude, Jessica Hardy. There was a female swimmer that, when she didn't make the team at the trials, had folks breathing a sigh of relief. Sure, there are still dopers--even American ones.

But back to Janet Evans--someone that I would have a very, very hard time believing was doped. Her records did stand up to dopers.

OT to this subthread--Lance's VO2 max was listed in a Runner's World story last year as 85, same as Paul Tergat, former marathon record holder.

LeMond's VO2max was never tested at 92. Instead it was tested in the off-season and then extrapolated to his race weight (i.e., assumed volume stayed the same while his weight dropped). So there's a bit of mythology, legend, and puffery on LeMond's part there.
http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

jorgy said:


> Dude, Jessica Hardy. There was a female swimmer that, when she didn't make the team at the trials, had folks breathing a sigh of relief. Sure, there are still dopers--even American ones.
> 
> But back to Janet Evans--someone that I would have a very, very hard time believing was doped. Her records did stand up to dopers.
> 
> ...



K....

Regarding Lance and Lemond...
Lance has been listed at 82-85... But it was likely near 100 when he was properly tune up by Ferarri and 10 pounds lighter.
Many riders have an 85 though.


Lemond was tested at 6.2-6.4 liters per minute on the bike....which does indeed translate to a 92-93 based on his racing weight. VO2 max would be higher at a lighter body weight and the greater intensity of the in-season.

VO2 max increases with weight drop because it is the amount of O2 assimilated per kilo of body weight per....but you know this(just telling others) 

You may have some misunderstanding in regards to "volume" and intensity and how it related to increases in VO2 max....please read on.....

Volume at endurance pace, typically done in the Fall and early winter, more as a mental and physical break nowadays, does not build true "base"...Sustainable power at FTP(functional threshold) is true base and everything is built off this>>>VO2 max and anaerobic work capacity.
You see once you are in even decent shape that high volume at endurance intensity does not increase stroke volume(the amount of blood that can be squeezed out of the LT Ventricle in one beat) nor does it do much to increase the numbers of mitochondria(O2 power houses at the cellular level) or the number of micro blood vessels to feed them....and thus it does not increase VO2 max. 


In the late Winter, or at least early Spring, pro's do structured 3-6 minute VO2 max intervals....after working on building sustainable power at threshold from about Jan 1 with hard group rides and some structured10-30 minute intervals at 90-100% FTP.


Not only is the intensity much greater in the in-season but often total volume is too, due to the incredible number of long hard weekly races. Lemond was not like "Lance"...Lemond raced A LOT...all the time.

In short if Lemond had a 6.2-6.4 liter per minute intake in the off season then it would be higher for sure in the in season......and at his race weight he probably had over 92.5 VO2 max.

In Lemonds book it is noted that winter volume is less than season volume and with less intensity.









Thanx


----------



## Cyclo-phile (Sep 22, 2005)

Here's a list of who has held the WR in the 200m freestyle at each 10 year increment for the last 100 years. Realgains' assertion that Phelps MUST be doped because of how much faster he is than Baumann or Spitz is crap. If we follow that logic then everyone except the first guy on the list is doped. Also, as EPO was creeping onto the world stage the WR was broken by small increments. At the height of the EPO era the WR stood for nearly 10 years. I'm not so naive that I think they're all clean, but the evidence that Realgains presents against Phelps is circumstancial and speculative at best.

1908 Otto Scheff 2:31.6
1918 Norman Ross 2:21.6
1928 Johnny Weissmuller 2:08.0
1938 Jack Medica 2:07.2
1948 Alex Jany 2:05.4
1958 Tsuyoshi Yamanaka 2:03.0
1968 Don Schollander 1:54.3
1978 Bruce Furniss 1:50.29
1988 Duncan Armstrong 1:47.25
1998 Giorgio Lamberti 1:46.69 (set in 1989, this record stood for nearly 10 years!)
2008 Michael Phelps 1:42.96

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_record_progression_200_metres_freestyle


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

The way you get speed in swimming is by having the right body type and having great technique, not by increasing your aerobic capacity. In swimming, the fastest people are the ones who are working less, not more. It's all about efficiency. I don't know Phelps' stats, but Australian star Ian Thorpe had a 9 foot stroke. That means he only needs 16 strokes per 50 meters, versus other competitors that could require up to 20 strokes or more. Four less strokes per lap means he is working less. Thorpe also has size 17 feet, which act as flippers, and he can do 50 meters in under 30 seconds, <i>just kicking</i>. The 100 meter freestyle record is about 47 seconds, and Thorpe can <i>kick</i> the same distance in about 60 seconds. His big flipper feet mean he works less, not more.

Feel free to attribute all success to dope, because for you it's always the easy answer. But swimming doesn't work that way. Watch Phelps from the underwater camera and you'll see he is working less, in comparison to most of the other swimmers. Count his strokes and compare them to the other swimmers. Look for bubbles when his hand goes into the water. Look for a wake, or lack of one. Technique, rhythm, timing. All things that dope won't help you with.

Also, your claim that it takes 5 days for an unjacked man to recover from an all out 2-4 minute effort is ridiculous. I'll bring you back to Mark Spitz. I don't know how many races (heats + finals) he did during the week or so he was at the 1972 Olympics, but it was probably 20 or more. He sure didn't need 5 days to recover from each one. The swimming events only last a week! It wasn't like he was racing the same guys all the time, either, putting them on equal footing. In his various races, he faced a lot of fresh guys, and he still beat them.


----------



## Ttown (Sep 7, 2007)

Where are the cycling power figures published going back to 1985? I am not looking for estimates but verifiable data like data provided by SRM in recent tours.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

mohair_chair said:


> The way you get speed in swimming is by having the right body type and having great technique, not by increasing your aerobic capacity.


I think any sport that contains a significant "skill" component muddy the waters a good bit. Probably good examples are tennis, gymnastics and swimming, significant "skill" components but dope you would think would still provide a signficant advantage because of increases in endurance/strength.

"Capacity" sports like weightlifting, running, cycling, other T&F events, that relatively speaking take little skill, I think the advantage from the dope is huge.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Ttown said:


> Where are the cycling power figures published going back to 1985? I am not looking for estimates but verifiable data like data provided by SRM in recent tours.


I'm not sure there are any, other than lab values. I'm not sure when SRM started producing power meters for use on the road, but I don't think it was back in the 80s?


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

Cyclo-phile said:


> Here's a list of who has held the WR in the 200m freestyle at each 10 year increment for the last 100 years. Realgains' assertion that Phelps MUST be doped because of how much faster he is than Baumann or Spitz is crap. If we follow that logic then everyone except the first guy on the list is doped. Also, as EPO was creeping onto the world stage the WR was broken by small increments. At the height of the EPO era the WR stood for nearly 10 years. I'm not so naive that I think they're all clean, but the evidence that Realgains presents against Phelps is circumstancial and speculative at best.
> 
> 1908 Otto Scheff 2:31.6
> 1918 Norman Ross 2:21.6
> ...


I'm astonished that folks into cycling enough that they participate in a doping forum actually argue that other endurance athletes in the Olympics must be clean.

Phelps broke a 10 year old record by 3.5 seconds (I'm guessing during this Olympics), and that doesn't raise any questions? It's not like he's a new comer either. Wasn't he the "worlds best swimmer" in 2004 as well? How do you all of a sudden find that much more effort / power / endurance during the biggest race of the past 4 years? It must be because of the "golden fleece" that we hear about during the Tour ... 

Anyone remember Marion Jones?


----------



## Cyclo-phile (Sep 22, 2005)

Yeah, and he broke a 100 year old record by nearly 45 seconds. Why have we become so jaded by the crap happening in the cycling world that we are unable to believe there might still be clean athletes winning somewhere in the world?


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

SRM was available in 1988. I bought one in 89 for $10,000!!! ..and I still have it(but now use the latest wireless model) The old ones are remarkably similar though and accurate. The issue they had was toughness and they needed to be dry.
Before 88 there were power meters on stationary bikes.

There was big initial interest in the SRM by many pro's ..but more as a novelty...to see what kind of powers they could hold for various times, except with a few and especially Lemond who soon came to actually train by power(but still used hear rate too).

I never really trained by power until 96 when I gave my heart rate monitor away in favor of power meter training. I gave my heart rate monitor away after fully understanding that training heart rates climb at all levels of intensity from normal training fatigue and that a myriad of "things" affect heart rate. 

Lemond could hold 380- watts up long climbs and about 390 up l’Alpe d’Huez. Lemonds FTP was probably about 375 at 147-148 pounds....close to 5.7 watts per kilo at FTP....that's about as good as anyone can get without jacking red cells.

As one poster noted Lemonds in season VO2 max was extrapolated from a winter test...based on his in season weight. What they didn't do was factor in the much higher intensity of pre season and in season training/racing which would FURTHER increase his VO2 max.....so Lemond very likely had a VO2 max greater then 92.5....simply SICKLY high.





Cheers


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

Einstruzende said:


> I'm astonished that folks into cycling enough that they participate in a doping forum actually argue that other endurance athletes in the Olympics must be clean.
> 
> Phelps broke a 10 year old record by 3.5 seconds (I'm guessing during this Olympics), and that doesn't raise any questions? It's not like he's a new comer either. Wasn't he the "worlds best swimmer" in 2004 as well? How do you all of a sudden find that much more effort / power / endurance during the biggest race of the past 4 years? It must be because of the "golden fleece" that we hear about during the Tour ...
> 
> Anyone remember Marion Jones?


It's not the fleece Einstruzende (which means nothing) it's the Speedo suit.
I, like you, do not believe in miracles. As a young Canadian back in 1988 I dared believe in Ben Johnson. Two days later I heard all kinds of BS statements in the media from "Carl Lewis must've spiked poor old Ben's drinking water" all the way to the downright racist "Jamaica can have him back!". 
In 2000 as a person of Greek origin also rolled my eyes seeing Kenteris winning the 200m dash. The Greek community would've hung me by the [email protected] if I would've dared to question his gold medal during those olympics but prior to the 2004 Athens olympics that same athlete is excluded from the team for missing a doping test.
For the record, I am a team CSC fan and am happy that Sastre won the TdF and Cancellara the olympic gold along with his many other victories including Milan-San Remo. But if he were to get busted for something other than speeding it wouldn't surprise me one bit. According to a former multiple yellow jersey winner, "I am a cynic".

Is that Nicole Kidman on your avatar?


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

JACKED through the roof "Lance" had at least 6.7 watts per kilo at 148 pounds. Some exercise scientists have estimated his FTP at 7 watts per kilo!!!
His l’Alpe d’Huez time is close to Pantani's time....who we all know jacked as high as 60% crit because it is documented. Pantani was 125 pounds and probably less for the tour....Lance was about 147 for that climb.....we are talking 22 pounds !!! But Lance was totally clean for that time up l’Alpe d’Huez........he he he


----------



## Ttown (Sep 7, 2007)

These are all estimates then? All these numbers have no original source citations then?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

There's a lot of PR involved in LA's VO2 max. It's disucussed on page 281 and other pages from the "One in a Million" (Beavis Laugh) chapter in From Lance to Landis..

The highest value recorded by Coyle was 81.2 in Sept '93 when around the time LA won the World Champs RR. In ''99 in went down to 71.5. He was tested 5 times during that time period by Coyle the results being 70, 76, 81,66, and 71.

"From the figures in the Coyle study, a fair estimate of Armstrong's VO 2 max would be somewhere itn the mid seventies."

LeMond by contrast not only had a freakishly high VO 2 max, this objective evidence was borne out by his *freakish performance in races.* Hanging with top American pro's at 15. Junior World victories and high placings. Third in the Dauphine at 19. Tour of the Future win by 10 minutes.

No kidding I think my VO 2 max might be in the seventies... I'm amazed that the Lance apologists ignore tons of evidence and indict LeMond based on well, nothing....

BTW, Realgains. Although fighting doping may be a losing battle, I still think it must be fought, and vigilantly. Maybe I'm naive, but that's the way I see it..


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Well, regarding improvement in World records, I would venture to say that the following is a realistic improvement scale:










IHPVA represents improvements in recumbent technology. UCI Best Human Effort shows the improvement in Upright Aero Bicycle technology. And the blue line shows what's actually humanly possible with training. Eddie Merckx in 1972, and a 0.5 percent improvement since then. That's the reality of how much humans can improve in 36 years.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Regarding the swimming records, and I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, I think they were soft.

this is a general statement, I realize, but look at the records for track. There really hasn't been all that much improvement from Bob Hayes and Wilma Rudolph to todays records and the huge improvements were (Marion Jones), or probably were (FloJo) jacked.

The records I find most interesting are the long distance track events. The times started falling dramatically at 5 and 10k when a lot of the African atheletes started getting European "agents."

It's really hard to say there. Henry Rono was an incredible natural talent(clean I think) who I believe was drinking pretty heavily while running incredible times. Low 13's 5k and, low 27's 10k.

Haile Gebrselassie lowered already fast records at both 5 and 10k by like 10 and 9 seconds respectively which seems nuts. Was Rono an underachiever or is Gebrselassie jacked?


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

A few comments on swimming records. I can't say anything for sure other than I'm a bit suspicious of Phelps, but in his defense swimming has changed radically since the days of Spitz. There were no hydrodynamic suits then. There have also been rule changes resulting in faster races. To name a few things that would have gotten a DQ in '72-

-head underwater in breaststroke 
-flipping onto your stomach for a turn in backstroke
-dolphin kicks in anything other than butterfly and freestyle

And the techniques have changed. Who did a quarter length underwater dolphin kicking in '72 (or even '82)? If you did any dive or turn and ended up 2' plus underwater your coach would be screaming loud enough for you to hear it from the other end of the pool.

And, the swimmers of changed. Back when I was a competitive swimmer the greats were usually long and tall body type, but I never saw a 6' 7" swimmer. Anybody over 6' 2" was moved to basketball. 

Also, to whomever posted the world records back to the early 1900s, didn't the early Olympics use a 25 meter pool? More turns, more slow.


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

lookrider said:


> There's a lot of PR involved in LA's VO2 max. It's disucussed on page 281 and other pages from the "One in a Million" (Beavis Laugh) chapter in From Lance to Landis..
> 
> The highest value recorded by Coyle was 81.2 in Sept '93 when around the time LA won the World Champs RR. In ''99 in went down to 71.5. He was tested 5 times during that time period by Coyle the results being 70, 76, 81,66, and 71.
> 
> ...



Good stuff look!

It has always been fought and should still be fought....but I wish the the would fight other sports half as much as cycling  But the white flag will be raised when gene doping has been perfected.


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

California L33 said:


> A few comments on swimming records. I can't say anything for sure other than I'm a bit suspicious of Phelps, but in his defense swimming has changed radically since the days of Spitz. There were no hydrodynamic suits then. There have also been rule changes resulting in faster races. To name a few things that would have gotten a DQ in '72-
> 
> -head underwater in breaststroke
> -flipping onto your stomach for a turn in backstroke
> ...



Good info.


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

DrSmile said:


> Well, regarding improvement in World records, I would venture to say that the following is a realistic improvement scale:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



BINGO.....hammer....nail...head !!!


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

Pantani recorded a 60% crit....120-125 pounds....Alpe d'Huez record time.

Armstrong....caught with Triamcinolone(riders corticoid of choice) in his blood from a saddle cream(butthead laugh).
147 pounds and a close second to Pantani up Alp d'Huez BUT at least 23 pounds heavier and probably over 25 pounds heavier.


Beavis AND Butthead laugh after viewing this clip every time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAGX3Z2wuaE

A clean Lance would be dropped within minutes by a jacked Pantani.



"Are people actually stupid, or just uneducated"


Cheers


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

Realgains said:


> BINGO.....hammer....nail...head !!!


A question arises from that graphic though (the blue line). 

We standardize the equipment, so no advantage there.

You take in the context of 36 years, and the knowledge that Merckx was most likely using Amphetamines. 

It seems to me that modern doping would have show a much bigger increase than 0.5% over the course of a third of a century.

So were Boardman and Sosenka clean, or perhaps just not as naturally talented as Merckx, so their "jacked times" were barely better than Merck' potentially amphetamine time?

I'm not accusing any of these athletes, just looking at the event through very jaded eyes.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

Dwayne Barry said:


> I think any sport that contains a significant "skill" component muddy the waters a good bit. Probably good examples are tennis, gymnastics and swimming, significant "skill" components but dope you would think would still provide a signficant advantage because of increases in endurance/strength.
> 
> "Capacity" sports like weightlifting, running, cycling, other T&F events, that relatively speaking take little skill, I think the advantage from the dope is huge.


Except Rafael Nadal was implicated in Operation Puerto. Regardless that he was never prosecuted (after all, how many of the 200 actually were?), there's a solid chance that the magic in Nadal's performances isn't all on his own doing.

Sadly, EVERYTHING is speculation. But, seeing Phelps' 800m relay team beat the previous world record by 5 seconds, every one of his individual results break world records, and doing so some 50min after his previous race...doubts are hard to overcome.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

Realgains said:


> "Are people actually stupid, or just uneducated"
> Cheers


Neither stupid nor uneducated.
When you think about it, nothing much has changed between ancient Rome and now. It's all "bread and circus".
Some members of RBR have expressed their honest opinion that this year's TdF was somewhat boring. Lack of attacks they said. I mean who wasn't praising the panache of Ricco before him getting busted? Was the rest of the TdF clean? IMO it was "somewhat" cleaner but still light years away from clean. 

As far as the Olympics go, how many billions would international TV dish out if the 100m dash winning time was 10.50sec? The 200m was run at 20.40sec? You get my point?

With all this in mind does it surprise you one bit that "reality TV" is so popular?

Like an old Emerson, Lake and Palmer song says: "Welcome back my friends, to the show that never ends, I'm so glad you could attend, come inside, come inside"


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

iliveonnitro said:


> Except Rafael Nadal was implicated in Operation Puerto.


I think you misunderstand me if you think I'm saying skill sport's athletes don't dope! I'm sure they do, probably widely. I just think it's more likely that at the top a non-doped rider could compete with a doped athlete in a skilled sport. 

However, I think this is pretty unlikely in sports where the outcome depends mostly on physical capacity rather than skill, simply because most (nearly all?) doping drugs increase physical capacity quite signficantly.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Einstruzende said:


> A question arises from that graphic though (the blue line).
> 
> We standardize the equipment, so no advantage there.
> 
> ...


Usually these record attempts are made at the end of an athlete's career, at a time when they are likely older and wiser and less likely to be doping. I don't know if Eddie was on amphetamines, but I do remember that when I was in my teens my father quit racing competitively because he found out that everyone was taking caffeine suppositories (yuck!). That was circa 1980.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

We can not have a thread about super jacked performances without the Queen


----------



## TheDon (Feb 3, 2006)

lookrider said:


> Regarding the swimming records, and I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, I think they were soft.
> 
> this is a general statement, I realize, but look at the records for track. There really hasn't been all that much improvement from Bob Hayes and Wilma Rudolph to todays records and the huge improvements were (Marion Jones), or probably were (FloJo) jacked.
> 
> ...


Africans started dominating track back in the 70's with Abebe Bikila.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

DrSmile said:


> ... but I do remember that when I was in my teens my father quit racing competitively because he found out that everyone was taking caffeine suppositories (yuck!).


I dare someone to go to Google Shopping and enter "caffeine suppository." 

And when they find it on your computer's cache you have an excuse.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

I think the question of responders and non-responders and a level playing field is much more complicated than RG is making it sound. As an example, one of the advantages for a natural responder to EPO (like me) is that it takes less drug per % increase in red count and thus a lower chance of detection. However since a responder will have a higher count to begin with (mine's close to 50) and there are limits to how much manipulation can be done to bring it back in line (which would be the same for either group), there is also a more stringent limit on how much doping a responder can do.

In a completely unregulated doping environment, pure death or glory, being a responder would give a significant advantage (death would presumably intervene later for those a smaller distance from their normal), but the minute testing comes into the picture the waters quickly muddy. Lance had a lot of headroom to boost his red count but since he wasn't a responder to start with he would take a larger dose than others (and be one of the few caught in frozen urine samples from 99). I could take a low dose but hit the testing ceiling (post manipulation) much sooner. It's not clear to me even in that simple scenario who would be gaining the most, and given a random distribution of the physiologic variables it's hard to say the results would be significantly altered.

Unless you took a nearly unlimited number of doping agents to modify every metabolic pathway, boosting one will just bang against your next performance limiter. In a large enough population there could be a guy whose only real limiting factor was red count and he would get a large advantage. Based on LA's career maybe he was that guy. Lose a little weight, use the best doctor (under exclusive contract), and have a lucky roll of the genetic dice and you can be superman. For the rest of the pack I'm not sure it mattered at all.


----------



## CurbDestroyer (Mar 6, 2008)

Even if Phelps doped, he won't get called on it. Same reason they wouldn't call Lance on it while he still has contemporary significants.


----------

