# Clean or no?



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

https://twitter.com/#!/lancearmstrong

@lancearmstrongLance Armstrong 


Ran the Brown Santa 5k this morning. Avg'd 5:23's. A little Sunday sufferin'. . .

16:41....I wonder if he's preparing still...


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Chris-X said:


> https://twitter.com/#!/lancearmstrong
> 
> @lancearmstrongLance Armstrong
> 
> ...


Doubt it, unless it's steroids to look good. His time is about as unimpressive as his marathon was a couple of years ago. Very respectable for any middle-aged runner but not for a guy who has the engine to be a world-class cyclist.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Doubt it, unless it's steroids to look good. His time is about as unimpressive as his marathon was a couple of years ago. Very respectable for any middle-aged runner but not for a guy who has the engine to be a world-class cyclist.


Yeah, his running was never really impressive though and elite runners his height are probably 30lbs lighter with stick legs.

I just can't imagine that he feels too good on caffeine alone after 20 years of doping.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Doubt it, unless it's steroids to look good. His time is about as unimpressive as his marathon was a couple of years ago. Very respectable for any middle-aged runner but not for a guy who has the engine to be a world-class cyclist.


I would bet that many top TdF racers...even those on dope...would struggle running consistent 5:20 miles out of the gate. Running and cycling are not the same.

Fast distance runners will be decent long distance cyclists without much training and vice a versa.. To truly be fast, you must train for that one discipline a ton.

If Lance does not train/run a ton, then 5:20 miles seem about right to me...even fairly impressive..

I am fairly certain he could improve said time (clean) if he trained for it.

Yes, LA is/was a doper imo..

I do agree that caffeine is probably a bit of a let down after operating on the "good stuff" for so long..


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

rydbyk said:


> I do agree that caffeine is probably a bit of a let down after operating on the "good stuff" for so long..


Caffeine is NEVER a let down.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Caffeine is NEVER a let down.


Haha. It's all relative.


----------



## thighmaster (Feb 2, 2006)

It's hard to run that fast.


----------



## jspharmd (May 24, 2006)

I ran faster than that in high school....for one mile.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

I have also been able to run faster than that in the past. Can't now due to IT band issues, but that pace isn't all that impressive. 

I highly he'd dope for some local 5k, especially as folks are tying to build a case against him.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

I'm not surprised at the time. A local pro mountain biker, a top 10 U.S. rider, ran an 18:00 even 5k in my hometown last year without any training--and it was his mountain biking offseason so he was just base training on the bike. He is a great mountain biker, but is merely a Cat 2 roadie who is good enough to be Cat 1 if he raced enough to get the points. I doubt he would ever sniff a real pro team.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Gatorback said:


> I'm not surprised at the time. A local pro mountain biker, a top 10 U.S. rider, ran an 18:00 even 5k in my hometown last year without any training--and it was his mountain biking offseason so he was just base training on the bike. He is a great mountain biker, but is merely a Cat 2 roadie who is good enough to be Cat 1 if he raced enough to get the points. I doubt he would ever sniff a real pro team.


I'm surprised you remembered anyone running 18 min for a 5 k a year ago. Obviously it's easy for someone with that engine to run just under 5:50 pace for 5k. I don't think that qualifies as no training though. Plus I bet if he hadn't run in months his legs were completely killing him the next day.

Anyway, I was getting at the idea that I don't believe that Armstrong can even function clean. Twenty years of pumping yourself up with God knows what and more than 5 cups of coffee a day? I don't think the body and especially the brain responds well to quitting that kind of regime, except for the coffee. 

I saw somewhere that he was big on caffeine pills during races.

If he hasn't already, I expect him to completely fall off a cliff performance wise, unless he's still jacked.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

Chris-X said:


> I'm surprised you remembered anyone running 18 min for a 5 k a year ago. Obviously it's easy for someone with that engine to run just under 5:50 pace for 5k. I don't think that qualifies as no training though. Plus I bet if he hadn't run in months his legs were completely killing him the next day.
> 
> Anyway, I was getting at the idea that I don't believe that Armstrong can even function clean. Twenty years of pumping yourself up with God knows what and more than 5 cups of coffee a day? I don't think the body and especially the brain responds well to quitting that kind of regime, except for the coffee.
> 
> ...


It wasn't hard to remember. He is a buddy of mine, the race was sponsored by a charity where I volunteer a lot--10+ hours a week--and I led out the race that day on my mountain bike to ensure the leaders knew the course. I'm also a former runner with a PR of 18:21, run in my mid-30s as a weekend warrior getting up to train at 5:00 a.m. before heading off to work. So I was interested in how he--and several other of my riding buddies--would do in the race. I sponsored the local shop where they worked and paid for 10 runners, including the pro who ran the 18:00.

Yes he hurt bad the next day because he is not a runner. 

With the caffeine pills, that is legal. I've used them multiple times before racing half marathons. They help you burn a higher percentage of fat. There is an upper limit of how much you can take, but it is very high. When I would race a half-marathon I would drink my normal morning coffee and take 200mg of caffeine through pills. Runner's magazines and training books actually recommend it.

----

I haven't been on the doping forum in a while, but have been a frequent poster here in the past. You should know that I'm no fan of Armstrong and in fact dislike him. I believe he should come forward and help clean up cycling instead of calling all his former friends liars. 

But remember that he is a tremendous athlete despite the doping. My only point was that it does not surprise me that a world class endurance athlete could rip off a sub-17 minute 5k without doping. Now if Armstrong turns a 14:30 5k at his age then I would be calling b.s. on that, but 16:51 is not a big deal for someone with his talent. Show up an any high school cross country race and you probably have at least half a dozen kids running that fast or better--kids who are nowhere could enough to even get a college scholarship.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Gatorback said:


> It wasn't hard to remember. He is a buddy of mine, the race was sponsored by a charity where I volunteer a lot--10+ hours a week--and I led out the race that day on my mountain bike to ensure the leaders knew the course. I'm also a former runner with a PR of 18:21, run in my mid-30s as a weekend warrior getting up to train at 5:00 a.m. before heading off to work. So I was interested in how he--and several other of my riding buddies--would do in the race. I sponsored the local shop where they worked and paid for 10 runners, including the pro who ran the 18:00.
> 
> Yes he hurt bad the next day because he is not a runner.
> 
> ...


I'm a former wrestler with a PR of 16:40 in my mid thirties with very little training (20-30 miles per week), and while burning the candle at both ends

I have a lot of 5k's around 17mins. I've also made the same arguments as you about how sub 17 minute 5k's are nothing. 

That being said, Armstrong was also talking about running 18:20 5k's a few years ago and I don't think it's easy to run a minute and a half faster than that with the musculature he has in his legs. 

I will say this. I believe these guys become physically and psychologically addicted to doping much the way bodybuilders do.

I'm not a believer in caffeine pills in a race. I guess people can do what they want to do but to me there's kind of a difference between drinking a Coke and taking pills. 

Once you get going in a half marathon or marathon you really just need to keep your sugar intake up.

I probably framed the thread wrong, because I don't think it's necessary to dope to run such a mediocre time, but I suspect Armstrong is still doping, just like I suspect that people who have been drinking coffee for many years have a hard time quitting. I know I couldn't quit coffee.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Chris-X said:


> I probably framed the thread wrong, because I don't think it's necessary to dope to run such a mediocre time, but I suspect Armstrong is still doping, just like I suspect that people who have been drinking coffee for many years have a hard time quitting. I know I couldn't quit coffee.


Why would he dope for a rinky dink 5k? Why would he even still be doping given that he has retired?


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

spade2you said:


> Why would he dope for a rinky dink 5k? Why would he even still be doping given that he has retired?


I'm not saying he's doping for a 5k. I'm saying he's doping because he's been relying on dope for 20 years. 

Regarding the second question, why do guys who work out at the local Gold's gym dope, or guy's who race the industrial park crits?

I'm of the opinion that he probably has to dope to feel normal. For one thing, he's complained of low testosterone from having only one testicle and he's not as young as he used to be. 

I don't know how old you are but I'm closing in on 50 and I don't jump out of bed the way I used to, in a manner of speaking..


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

Dropping a minute thirty would not be hard for Armstrong if he started training for triathlons and was running. 

In regard to his musculature, often times that is deceiving. Two years ago when I led out the same race the winner was a former h.s. cross country runner from my hometown who had run on scholarship at a major college. He was then serving as a graduate assistant coach for a cross country and track team. He was weighing about 185 and looked like he had played college football as opposed to running cross country and track--we didn't even recognize him at first. 

His time? 15:40. I tried to get him interested in cycling. The guy has the talent to be a Cancellara. His interest is running, however, and now he is an assistant coach somewhere. I swear if he took up cycling he could be a monster on the bike.

- - - - - - - - -

In regard to what is an impressive time, anything under 20 minutes for a 5k is impressive. That would put the person in the top 2% of all runners. But when you start talking about some of the world class endurance athletes, 16:41 for 5k is not a problem.

Again, my belief is Armstrong was a walking pharmacy and I want him to come forward and help clean up cycling. But the guys he was competing against were doping no less than him. The fact they doped, which was necessary to succeed at that level given the culture in cycling, doesn't take away from the fact they are all serious, serious talents who probably would have been at the top of their sport if doping did not exist.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

It's entertaining to think that ex-dopers are still doping out of competition, but it's just wishful thinking.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Gatorback said:


> Dropping a minute thirty would not be hard for Armstrong if he started training for triathlons and was running.
> 
> In regard to his musculature, often times that is deceiving. Two years ago when I led out the same race the winner was a former h.s. cross country runner from my hometown who had run on scholarship at a major college. He was then serving as a graduate assistant coach for a cross country and track team. He was weighing about 185 and looked like he had played college football as opposed to running cross country and track--we didn't even recognize him at first.
> 
> ...



20 minutes? A lot of people "run." I think the population of all runners is a poor one to gauge things by.

I hope you realize Armstrong will never come forward unless it's choice between some serious jail time or finally coming clean.

There are many people out there we don't even know the names of who've run 4 minute miles or sub 14 minute 5 k's or 2:20 marathons. 

The issue with the doping is, how does one say if a Christophe Bassons or Danny Pate or Michael Creed has more talent than a Lance Armstrong and we can't do that because being jacked confers an incredible advantage.

My take is that there is a huge downside to your body for being on drugs for a long period of time. As for Spade's question of why people would take PED's when they've retired, he hasn't answered my question of why no name gym rats are pumped full of steroids for no reason whatsoever except to be big. How about master's doping?


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

In regard to running times, I suggest you read _The Lore of Running_. There is lots of great research in it and will give you incredible insight into what a quality time is for a 5k run. A sub-20 minute 5k is a strong time when you consider the population as a whole. 

I don't know whether Armstrong still dopes or not. My assessment is just that a world class endurance athlete doesn't need to dope to run a 16:41. Those others guys you mention could probably do the same thing sans doping. 

Remember I do not like Armstrong, but do respect his abilities and what he accomplished (most if not all of the others were doping too). The culture in cycling needs to change. Armstrong is a coward in my opinion for not having the guts to come forward like Landis, Ulrich (he has essentially admitted it), and guys like Kimmage. Cycling needs a leader to step up, expose what is going on, and help put an end to doping. 

If Armstrong did that, he would be a real hero in my book. But right now I have more respect for Landis and others who have come forward.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Chris-X said:


> 20 minutes? A lot of people "run." I think the population of all runners is a poor one to gauge things by.
> 
> I hope you realize Armstrong will never come forward unless it's choice between some serious jail time or finally coming clean.
> 
> ...


Athletes used PEDs to win that is all. With EPO and micro dosing, you only had a slight increase in endurance. Higher dose EPO gave you much more VO2, but you run the risk of throwing blood clots. Since EPO is also very expensive, I highly doubt that any retired cyclists are using it. The idea that retired racers are using it is only wishful thinking. EPO simply doesn't really change the way you feel. 

Gym rats use roids to look good for vanity and/or a lack of confidence.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

I found out about this place from a former Pro Cenegenics | There IS such a thing as healthy aging! He did not even race masters but after decades of being in top shape he was not happy with getting older. Back then it was about $1,000 per month.

As for Armstrong. Given the intense focus on his doping by the Feds I would doubt he is doing anything these days. Much of his inner circle has flipped, Johan and Ferrari can't come to the States, I can't see him shooting up.

I am surprised how quickly he slowed down. Within months of retirement he was getting passed on climbs by tri-athletes. Given that he has been doping for decades it is hard to know what his real abilities are.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

He can probably still whoop most of us on the bike when he's 50-60, but I think a lot of this is simply Armstrong starting to get a little older and letting himself go. Doping or not, he had a fairly long run of life consuming training. I doubt if he's training more than half of what he used to at this point.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> He can probably still whoop most of us on the bike when he's 50-60, but I think a lot of this is simply Armstrong starting to get a little older and letting himself go. Doping or not, he had a fairly long run of life consuming training. I doubt if he's training more than half of what he used to at this point.


I guess he must be lying on twitter because he, and his alter ego Juan Pelota, is always writing about how hard he is training. 

While it is odd to see him get dropped on climbs his swimming is impressive.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Unless he plans on trying to unretire (again) because Cadel made winning the TdF look too easy, he's going to be transitioning to living more of a civilian life as the years roll on.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

spade2you said:


> *He can probably still whoop most of us on the bike when he's 50-60*, but I think a lot of this is simply Armstrong starting to get a little older and letting himself go. Doping or not, he had a fairly long run of life consuming training. I doubt if he's training more than half of what he used to at this point.


There's a saying, athletes who are in the best shape of their lives when young turn into the worst shape of their lives when older. It's biology that all organs in the body have a lifespan. I expect LA's organs (his body) should be nearing the point where it'll undergo accelerated aging. And I'm thinking that doping would prolly accelerate the aging process. Extreme athletes don't age gracefully. People who age gracefully are those who practice moderation (eating, drinking, exercise,.. ok sex) throughout their whole lives.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Unless he plans on trying to unretire (again) because Cadel made winning the TdF look too easy, he's going to be transitioning to living more of a civilian life as the years roll on.


If by "Civilian life" you mean endless hours with lawyers then I certainly agree but at the same time the sharp decrease in paid appearances and sponsor obligations should free up a lot of time for training.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Every once in a while, I wonder how long until y'all invest in an assassin. They're probably not that expensive if you go halfzies.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

*You're kidding yourself.*



Gatorback said:


> In regard to running times, I suggest you read _The Lore of Running_. There is lots of great research in it and will give you incredible insight into what a quality time is for a 5k run. A sub-20 minute 5k is a strong time when you consider the population as a whole..


I'm aware of the book and it's probably about 400 pages too long.

I don't consider people running an eight minute pace when I look for endurance talent.

A sub 20 minute 5k sucks. There are eighth grade kids who run a mile in 4:40 the first time they ever try it. Mary Decker was running a (edit) 2:02 half in jr high. 

People who think running a couple of miles at a 5 or 6 minute pace means anything don't realize that thousands of people in the U.S. can do this. Yeah, it's a small percentage of 300 million but....



Gatorback said:


> I don't know whether Armstrong still dopes or not. My assessment is just that a world class endurance athlete doesn't need to dope to run a 16:41. Those others guys you mention could probably do the same thing sans doping. .


IMHO, the guy has relied on doping so long, has put his body through hell his whole life, and has survived cancer, this takes a tremendous toll. One's performance usually falls off a cliff getting around to middle age and with his physique, I think he needs all the help he can get, especially after being jacked for so long.

I blew by Frank Shorter one year in the Orange Classic 10k on my way to a mediocre 36 or 37 minute run. I was in my early 30's. Frank was probably about 47-48 at that time. It meant absolutely nothing. There might have been 10 Kenyans who broke 29 minutes and a handful of Americans who ran under 30, all freaks. I don't think I can remember one of their names.




Gatorback said:


> Remember I do not like Armstrong, but do respect his abilities and what he accomplished (most if not all of the others were doping too). The culture in cycling needs to change. Armstrong is a coward in my opinion for not having the guts to come forward like Landis, Ulrich (he has essentially admitted it), and guys like Kimmage. Cycling needs a leader to step up, expose what is going on, and help put an end to doping.
> 
> If Armstrong did that, he would be a real hero in my book. But right now I have more respect for Landis and others who have come forward.


Forget Armstrong coming forward. His whole career is smoke and mirrors. They guy has lied about everything to everyone. If he started telling the truth most people would realize that he's just the same as the badasses on the LBS rides, nothing more.

Sure Armstrong had enough talent to get into the arena but no one has any idea whether he's actually better than a Creed or a Pate because doping makes enough of a difference to obliterate big differences in talent.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

I've taken the time to read _The Lore of Running_, much of it twice actually, along with a couple of dozen other great books regarding running and exercise physiology. I've also raced significantly myself, helped direct road races, and studied exercise physiology both formally and informally.

Based on your statements, you have a lot to learn. If you ran a 10k in 36 or 37 minutes, I guess it just proves that having good genetics for running fast doesn't mean you also have a great mind. Because a 36 minute 10k is very strong--not at a professional level or even a D-1 collegiate level--but still a great time. Your statements on the other hand...


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

*I think you're a lawyer...*



Gatorback said:


> I've taken the time to read _The Lore of Running_, much of it twice actually, along with a couple of dozen other great books regarding running and exercise physiology. I've also raced significantly myself, helped direct road races, and studied exercise physiology both formally and informally.
> 
> *Based on your statements, you have a lot to learn. If you ran a 10k in 36 or 37 minutes, I guess it just proves that having good genetics for running fast doesn't mean you also have a great mind.* Because a 36 minute 10k is very strong--not at a professional level or even a D-1 collegiate level--but still a great time. Your statements on the other hand...


and I've read some of what you've written regarding Armstrong. If you're the same person I'm thinking of I've pretty much agreed with your perspective.

I see the shot you've taken at me and if you'd be so kind, inform me of what your criticisms are. I'd address them.

Honestly, I've read a decent amount about running, weight training, exercise physiology, and I think most of it would have been better off not being written.

Most of what's been written should be reduced to the simple fact that in "stair stepped" training you are giving yourself stress, and your body is overcompensating when you rest. Merckx and LeMond had great advice, "ride lots" and just get out there, the equipment doesn't matter, just feel good and do it.

You should have an increasing feeling of well being and should be enjoying yourself when you are participating in the activity. Outside of the results of the event, it really doesn't carry too much importance other than participating, being healthy, and feeling good about yourself.

I have no idea about what your athletic background is other than you saying you ran 18:21 for 5k. If you're running or cycling, good for you! Anyone who has a lot of talent, that talent will reveal itself fairly quickly. For me the running or cycling is the enjoyment of moving, focus, getting away, relaxing, etc., not fooling myself that my self worth is dependent on how fast I'm going.

My athletic background is that I had a lot of talent from the time I was small up through HS in a couple of activities.. My father was an elite wrestler who was 2nd in the NAAU's, losing to the Japanese National champ, and beat some guys who were on the '60 Olympic team. My father would ask me, "are you having a good time?" wrestling, and it honestly never entered my mind that I was supposed to be having a good time. I internalized the bs from the coaches that a lot was "at stake" including my manhood, LMAO, all at the age of 14-17.

More of what I'm getting at in some of these exchanges is that I had enough talent to understand what talent actually is, and that many of those who say Armstrong is something special really don't have the background to make that assessment of Armstrong.. The fact that he cheated with powerful drugs clouds the issue even more.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Every once in a while, I wonder how long until y'all invest in an assassin. They're probably not that expensive if you go halfzies.


I can't image that anyone cares that much....besides he is doing such a good job imploding without anyones help


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

Chris-X said:


> and I've read some of what you've written regarding Armstrong. If you're the same person I'm thinking of I've pretty much agreed with your perspective.
> 
> I see the shot you've taken at me and if you'd be so kind, inform me of what your criticisms are. I'd address them.
> 
> ...


It sounds as if you are interested in what gets results through training and the health benefits of it. So am I--however, I am a self-professed geek and am also interested in the why. Why do we improve through training? What is going on physiologically within our bodies that cause improvement? And why do some people improve quickly and dramatically while others don't? Why do endurance sports come easy to me, but I can't put on any significant muscle mass if my life depended on it (even at 42 as a working stiff and a much slower metabolism).

The Lore of Running is such a great book because it lays out numerous theories on training and what makes some runners great. It explains the benefits and weaknesses of those theories. The common model we use (focusing on VO2 max, lactate threshhold, and efficiency) is a great model, but it has its weaknesses and limitations. It is kind of like Einstein's theory of relativity. It has been great for physicists, but doesn't explain everything. The same is true for the cardiovascular model. It is probably the gold standard right now, but it has its limits. 

If you read The Lore of Running you would learn that while there are many thousands--millions actually--who can run like the wind and easily run a sub-20 minute 5k (that is a little south of 6:30 per mile), it is actually fairly small part of the world's population when you consider there are 6+ billion people. There may be a million people out there with the genetics to run under 15 minutes for a 5k--but again that is a small percentage of the population. Go randomly sample 1000 people in your hometown and you may find none who could ever break 15 minutes. 

My point about Armstrong and his 16:41 is that, for a world class endurance athlete, running that time is not hard with some training. And he appears to be training, racing triathlons now (or at least one Xterra). While I am not fan of Armstrong's, I do recognize his incredible athletic ability. He was one of the best cyclists ever. Sure he was doping, as were the ones he was racing against, but he was and still is a world class endurance athlete. 

It appears you and have pretty similar opinions expect two issues: (1) whether Armstrong could run a 16:41 without doping, after having doped for many years; and (2) whether a sub-20 minute 5k is a quality time for the population as a whole. On the second, we probably shouldn't argue. It isn't relevant to this forum. Go read The Lore of Running with a critical eye, then see what you think. 

With Armstrong running the 16:41, I'd argue that is evidence he isn't doping right now. If he is training, and was using EPO or blood doping now, his time would probably be much faster given the fact he is a world class endurance athlete.


----------



## WaynefromOrlando (Mar 3, 2010)

Chris-X said:


> https://twitter.com/#!/lancearmstrong
> 
> @lancearmstrongLance Armstrong
> 
> ...


The current USATF world record for the 45-49 age group (male) is:

45-49 15:12.25 Mike Manley OR (47) 1989-Aug-01 
45-49 14:45.96 (p) Peter Magill CA (45) So Pasadena, CA 2006-Jul-01 

The 2011 Masters National Championship was won by: 

1 Mark Andrews, 40, 15:26, Rochester, NY

A 16:41 would have placed 8th at that race, the 10th place age group 40-44 time was 17:17.02 

Placing in the top 10 nationally is not too shabby, I challenge anyone who thinks otherwise to do better.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

aclinjury said:


> There's a saying, *athletes who are in the best shape of their lives when young turn into the worst shape of their lives when older*. It's biology that all organs in the body have a lifespan. I expect LA's organs (his body) should be nearing the point where it'll undergo accelerated aging. And I'm thinking that doping would prolly accelerate the aging process. Extreme athletes don't age gracefully. People who age gracefully are those who practice moderation (eating, drinking, exercise,.. ok sex) throughout their whole lives.


Like what happened to Eddy Merckx, before his stomach surgery? 
Eddy Merckx before and after pictures. Wow


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

*Fair enough....*



Gatorback said:


> It sounds as if you are interested in what gets results through training and the health benefits of it. So am I--however, I am a self-professed geek and am also interested in the why. Why do we improve through training? What is going on physiologically within our bodies that cause improvement? And why do some people improve quickly and dramatically while others don't? Why do endurance sports come easy to me, but I can't put on any significant muscle mass if my life depended on it (even at 42 as a working stiff and a much slower metabolism).
> 
> The Lore of Running is such a great book because it lays out numerous theories on training and what makes some runners great. It explains the benefits and weaknesses of those theories. The common model we use (focusing on VO2 max, lactate threshhold, and efficiency) is a great model, but it has its weaknesses and limitations. It is kind of like Einstein's theory of relativity. It has been great for physicists, but doesn't explain everything. The same is true for the cardiovascular model. It is probably the gold standard right now, but it has its limits.
> 
> ...


I'm kind of 50/50 whether Armstrong is still doping. Falsetti also made a good point that he's under a lot of scrutiny now.

I don't really have the time or energy for a full response now, but without being falsely modest, I recognize that I have a decent amount of athletic talent. I'm 5'9", 170lbs, 10 of which I gained just recently by not caring. 47 Years old. I'm good for 15-16 very strict palms facing me pull ups, how many people can do that? But amongst athletic people, gymnasts, or Jack LaLaine types, I suspect it's way lower than avg. performance. 

My father was a physical freak. 5'4", 115 lbs, ran a 100 yards in HS in 10.6 seconds. Great psychology and mentality for combat sports and he could engage someone using almost no strength whatsoever. No panic, no emotion. Mongoose and cobra type stuff and mature mongoose's always win. With an opponent, just using his weight, their weight, their strength, turning his body, their strong grip, a joint lock etc. completely effortless stuff which for him was almost innate. BTW, he looked like nothing, like you'd destroy him. Appearances are deceiving.

What I'm trying to tell you is that I've seen a lot from up close, and have enough experience in a lot of different areas, like PED's and recreational drugs too, to know where I stand and the capacities of others at different ages.

Obviously, by virtue of being a professional cyclist, Armstrong is well outside the norm. But he is amongst 200 other guys who are also well outside the norm and he's very average when compared to them. Throw into the picture all the stuff he's been taking and his performances mean practically nothing.

BTW, the only training stuff I look at these days is the internal martial arts. No limit to how soft you can be.


----------



## Mr. Scary (Dec 7, 2005)

Chris-X said:


> I'm kind of 50/50 whether Armstrong is still doping. Falsetti also made a good point that he's under a lot of scrutiny now.
> 
> I don't really have the time or energy for a full response now, but without being falsely modest, I recognize that I have a decent amount of athletic talent. I'm 5'9", 170lbs, 10 of which I gained just recently by not caring. 47 Years old. I'm good for 15-16 very strict palms facing me pull ups, how many people can do that? But amongst athletic people, gymnasts, or Jack LaLaine types, I suspect it's way lower than avg. performance.
> 
> ...


So you and your dad are Mendelbaums?  Apparently it's go time for Gatorback.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Mr. Scary said:


> So you and your dad are Mendelbaums?  Apparently it's go time for Gatorback.


Really? I think Gatorback has stated that he has endurance talent. I've run significantly faster than his stated PR many times, and I don't believe I have all that much talent.

There are people who attach importance to these things. I don't.

Regarding Armstrong, people who've known him for a long time like Phil Anderson have said that he couldn't climb and couldn't time trial.

Listen, if Greg LeMond was taking crap from the peanut gallery and it was obvious how great he was, I'm going to get ragged mentioning my ordinary capabilities.

Sorry for trying to put it in perspective for you.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

Mr. Scary said:


> So you and your dad are Mendelbaums?  Apparently it's go time for Gatorback.


Pretty funny. I had to look up Mandelbaums and fortunately there is an enlightening YouTube video. I love Seinfeld but didn't get to watch his show much. 

I think I'm going to have to play the role of Jerry in this one. I'm just a 40-something washed up working stiff with a very healthy respect for the many different levels of "great athletes" out there. I've been fortunate enough to compete all my life, with some nice accomplishments, but have been humbled enough to know where I really stand in the grand scheme of things. 

Fortunately I am gifted genetically compared to your average weekend warrior, but know that I probably ought to stick to the more cerebral stuff. A few local mtb pros, a former pro roadie, a couple of Cat 1 riders, and a few guys (and chicks!) at a local Crossfit gym have shown me that I should not try to tout my physical prowess.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Gatorback said:


> Pretty funny. I had to look up Mandelbaums and fortunately there is an enlightening YouTube video. I love Seinfeld but didn't get to watch his show much.
> 
> I think I'm going to have to play the role of Jerry in this one. I'm just a 40-something washed up working stiff with a very healthy respect for the many different levels of "great athletes" out there. I've been fortunate enough to compete all my life, with some nice accomplishments, but have been humbled enough to know where I really stand in the grand scheme of things.
> 
> Fortunately I am gifted genetically compared to your average weekend warrior, but know that I probably ought to stick to the more cerebral stuff. A few local mtb pros, a former pro roadie, a couple of Cat 1 riders, and a few guys (and chicks!) at a local Crossfit gym have shown me that I should not try to tout my physical prowess.


Perhaps you are afraid that people will think you put EPO in your coffee like Lance does?


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Gatorback said:


> Pretty funny. I had to look up Mandelbaums and fortunately there is an enlightening YouTube video. I love Seinfeld but didn't get to watch his show much.
> 
> I think I'm going to have to play the role of Jerry in this one. I'm just a 40-something washed up working stiff with a very healthy respect for the many different levels of "great athletes" out there. I've been fortunate enough to compete all my life, with some nice accomplishments, but have been humbled enough to know where I really stand in the grand scheme of things.
> 
> *Fortunately I am gifted genetically compared* to your average weekend warrior, but know that I probably ought to stick to the more cerebral stuff. A few local mtb pros, a former pro roadie, a couple of Cat 1 riders, and a few guys (and chicks!) at a local Crossfit gym have shown me that I should not try to tout my physical prowess.


Yeah it is funny but completely inapplicable, and remember, any talent you do have is a gift, not of your own doing.

I've edited this a bunch.

Those who really have talent recognize the downside of it.

If you're incapable of discerning what I'm talking about, you don't have talent.


----------



## Keith B. (Aug 23, 2010)

I bet that a lot of dopers will stay on therapeutic testosterone. Otherwise they would feel like crap.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

Chris-X said:


> https://twitter.com/#!/lancearmstrong
> 
> @lancearmstrongLance Armstrong
> 
> ...


there are many reasons to conclude Armstrong doped. 16:41 5K is not one of them.
I have run that fast, and I would not consider myself a talented endurance athlete by any means.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

<17 is a great 5K time. He'd win his age group--if not the entire race--at many small 5Ks. Heck, I won a 5K on New Years Day running significantly slower. 

In defense of my "significantly slower" time, it was a hilly course  


and I was tired from riding so hard earlier in the week.



and the sun got in my eye. 




Is that 16:41 possible for a former world class endurance athlete? Definitely. Does that time make sense for a 2:45 marathoner? Yes. Both are mortal feats for clean masters athletes. 

And all we can do is speculate. I can't imagine that Lance is on anything hard, like EPO. At the *most* I think he's doing a little testosterone replacement therapy. It's all perfectly legal at this point -- under a Dr's supervision. Urologists have no qualms about giving those shots or patches.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Local Hero said:


> <17 is a great 5K time. He'd win his age group--if not the entire race--at many small 5Ks. Heck, I won a 5K on New Years Day running significantly slower.
> 
> In defense of my "significantly slower" time, it was a hilly course
> 
> ...


Do you think he was clean for the 2:46 marathon? How about his comeback to cycling when he was taking half hour long showers?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

I don't think he was on EPO for the marathons. I don't doubt the TRT. But I really have no way of knowing. 

It seems like a long shower would be a perfect time to dope up or transfuse a few units of blood. But then again, there's another explanation for the long shower: relaxation. I've actually sat down and almost fallen asleep in the shower after long hard days. 

To the argument that he would crash or be unable to perform after X years on the sauce I say this: Just as body builders retain some strength years after they stop weight training, endurance athletes still maintain some of the physiological benefits of years of endurance training. I think these things are true with or without PEDs.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

orange_julius said:


> Like what happened to Eddy Merckx, before his stomach surgery?
> Eddy Merckx before and after pictures. Wow


I know someone who rode with Merckx when he was fat at a charity ride and he was still capable of putting the hurt on your typical charity ride rider when he was sitting on the front just riding along talking (w/ Hincapie and Armstrong).


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Dwayne Barry said:


> I know someone who rode with Merckx when he was fat at a charity ride and he was still capable of putting the hurt on your typical charity ride rider when he was sitting on the front just riding along talking (w/ Hincapie and Armstrong).


He's probably taking a provigil with his centrums.

Just out of curiosity and for the sake of knowing what the numbers are. Are we talking 30k/hr, 35, 40,45?

40 is usually more than sufficient to put the hurt on most.


----------



## C6Rider (Nov 15, 2008)

*My thoughts on a 16:41*



Chris-X said:


> https://twitter.com/#!/lancearmstrong
> 
> @lancearmstrongLance Armstrong
> 
> ...



When I was 40...which I think is Lance's present age, I could easily run a 5K in the low 16s. and that was when I was training for ultras (50K to 100K races). However, biking was / is another story. When I ride a century, it's in the 5 to 6 hour range...good bikers are done hours before me. It's all relative, if you ask me.


----------



## C6Rider (Nov 15, 2008)

*My thoughts on a 16:41*



Chris-X said:


> https://twitter.com/#!/lancearmstrong
> 
> @lancearmstrongLance Armstrong
> 
> ...



When I was 40...which I think is Lance's present age, I could easily run a 5K in the low 16s. and that was when I was training for ultras (50K to 100K races). However, biking was / is another story. I know I couldn't ride up any of TdF mountain climbs, and have trouble maintaining 30K for an hour on the flats.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

C6Rider said:


> When I was 40...which I think is Lance's present age, I could easily run a 5K in the low 16s. and that was when I was training for ultras (50K to 100K races). However, biking was / is another story. I know I couldn't ride up any of TdF mountain climbs, and have trouble maintaining 30K for an hour on the flats.


Really?! hmm... that's a bit weird. Low 16 for 5K = very solid aerobic engine. 5-hour century or 30K/hr (<20mph) for 1 hour on the flats is very pedestrian in comparison.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

55x11 said:


> Really?! hmm... that's a bit weird. Low 16 for 5K = very solid aerobic engine. 5-hour century or 30K/hr (<20mph) for 1 hour on the flats is very pedestrian in comparison.


I agree. I could not come close to a sub-17 minute 5k, but 30k per hour on the flats is endurance pace for me on the bike.

We have a local former high school runner, mid-20s now, who still runs in the low 16's for the 5k and has started riding. Despite his skinny runners legs/underdeveloped cycling muscles, his aerobic engine makes him formidable on the bike. He could ride 40k per hour for an hour without much trouble judging for his performance on the front of our group rides.


----------

