# What would Lance have accomplished if he hadn't doped?



## il sogno (Jul 15, 2002)

I think he could have been a rider like Claudio Chiappucci launching insane lone attacks, or he could've been a breakaway specialist, winning stages out of a small breakaway group. 

IMO participating in the Tour, much less, winning a few stages still would have been mightily impressive for a cancer survivor.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

*all his victories are tainted*

He could not have beaten cancer without EPO and testosterone.


----------



## loubnc (May 8, 2008)

Local Hero said:


> He could not have beaten cancer without EPO and testosterone.


For all anyone knows they could have been what caused the cancer in the first place.

Somehow, I feel like this "ban" may ultimately save the man's life. God knows what these guys are capable of using given the desire and chance to be on top. There's plenty of speculation and anecdotal evidence, but who knows what all the different PEDs really do to your body long term. This way maybe he won't have to find out the hard way (again).

Take away the need to "be the best" and you take away the need for that type of person to dope in the first place.


----------



## il sogno (Jul 15, 2002)

Local Hero said:


> He could not have beaten cancer without EPO and testosterone.


Okay.

So let's say he only used EPO and testosterone to beat cancer and otherwise rode free of performance enhancing drugs. What kind of rider do you think he could have been?


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

il sogno said:


> Okay.
> 
> So let's say he only used EPO and testosterone to beat cancer and otherwise rode free of performance enhancing drugs. What kind of rider do you think he could have been?


In a theoretical clean environment he would have been a decent one day racer. He would have won GT stages, non-mountainous ones unless he got lucky like Hincapie, short stage races that favored a punchy rider, and maybe a monument or two like LBL, Flanders, or Lombardi. He never would have placed in the top ten of the Tour.


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

Good topic, I've often wondered this.. When Lance was first coming up.. he was a very gifted rider, but NEVER was considered a grand tour rider..he was considered a great one day rider... 

I think without the EPO era he would have been a great one day racer and won stages of grand tours.. maybe a few more world's with the right course.. Maybe a cross between a Boonen and Chiappucci or... a Sean Kelly like rider. 

It is really kind of sad.. he could have been a great hero with even just a few one day wins, but instead imo he is just a ............


----------



## Nob (Nov 24, 2006)

Lance went from an official racing weight of 171# pre cancer to a racing weight for the TDF of 158# after cancer treatment with the same/measured measured strength and Vo2 max. Not a huge weight drop by cancer standards and cisplatinum chemo treatment (i lost close to 50#) but then Lance went in more fit than most with little fat to loose @ 6% and 25 years old.

Armstrong has recorded an aerobic capacity of 83.8 mL/kg/min (VO2 max), much higher than the average person (40–50), but lower than some other Tour De France winners, such as Miguel Indurain (88.0, although reports exist that Indurain tested at 92–94) and Greg LeMond (92.5). At his peak, LA had a resting heart rate of 32–34 beats per minute (bpm) with a maximum heart rate of 201 bpm.

But that is a a HUGE weight drop for a pro rider. You are changed from a world class roller to a world class climber with those kinds of numbers. Most world-class climbers carry just 2 pounds (1 kilogram) of body weight for every inch of height. Lance is 5 ft 9.5 in (177 cm). According to The New York Times, Lance Armstrong has produced 6.8 watts per kilogram of body weight, compared to a good recreational cyclist, who can generate 4 watts per kilogram [source: Kolata].

Lance getting the same level of strength back should be no surprise here imo. I'd bet he loss 13# of muscle with cisplatinum. I lost fat but in the depths of chemo I saw muscle tissue literally melting away everywhere on my body. Getting back the abilty to put out those kinds of watts (Lance's watts on a bike) is really impressive. But I have upped mine with no drugs and I am dbl his age and went into treatment pretty fit myself..

Winning bike races has much to do with your ability to suffer. . 

Anyone that has done cisplatinum (the major chemo drug LA used ) knows something about suffering others generally don't.

Best not to talk sh#t about the cancer side of it.


----------



## 41ants (Jul 24, 2007)

... And what if no one else was doping.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

Nob said:


> Lance went from an official racing weight of 171# pre cancer to a racing weight for the TDF of 158# after cancer treatment with the same/measured measured strength and Vo2 max. Not a huge weight drop by cancer standards and cisplatinum chemo treatment (i lost close to 50#) but then Lance went in more fit than most with little fat to loose @ 6% and 25 years old.
> 
> Armstrong has recorded an aerobic capacity of 83.8 mL/kg/min (VO2 max), much higher than the average person (40–50), but lower than some other Tour De France winners, such as Miguel Indurain (88.0, although reports exist that Indurain tested at 92–94) and Greg LeMond (92.5). At his peak, LA had a resting heart rate of 32–34 beats per minute (bpm) with a maximum heart rate of 201 bpm.
> 
> ...


The weight drop is another Armstrong lie. He was questioned about it during his SCA deposition and admitted that his racing weight was no different pre cancer than it was post cancer.

Armstrong's VO2Max was average for a pro.

This argument that going through chemo somehow gives people a magical ability to suffer and perform better aerobically is ludicrous.


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

Nob said:


> Lance went from an official racing weight of 171# pre cancer to a racing weight for the TDF of 158# after cancer treatment with the same/measured measured strength and Vo2 max. Not a huge weight drop by cancer standards and cisplatinum chemo treatment (i lost close to 50#) but then Lance went in more fit than most with little fat to loose @ 6% and 25 years old.
> 
> Armstrong has recorded an aerobic capacity of 83.8 mL/kg/min (VO2 max), much higher than the average person (40–50), but lower than some other Tour De France winners, such as Miguel Indurain (88.0, although reports exist that Indurain tested at 92–94) and Greg LeMond (92.5). At his peak, LA had a resting heart rate of 32–34 beats per minute (bpm) with a maximum heart rate of 201 bpm.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure why you posted this post on this thread? Agreed though winning bike races is very much about one's ability to suffer.. 

You do know the weight thing has been debunked.. That all came about due to Lance's paid consultant Edward Coyle... Here is a link to him admitting he made a calculation error. 
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/sports/11iht-11cycling.16080289.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

And further findings debunk it as well: The Science of Sport: Coyle and Armstrong: Research "errors" evaluation

So.. if Lance Armstrong didn't dope-with epo and blood tranfusions, other drugs weren't the game changer that EPO and bloold tranfusions turned out to be.. How do you think his career would have gone? Again I think he would have been an excellent one day racer.. winning many of those as well as stage wins..


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

trailrunner68 said:


> The weight drop is another Armstrong lie. He was questioned about it during his SCA deposition and admitted that his racing weight was no different pre cancer than it was post cancer.
> 
> Armstrong's VO2Max was average for a pro.
> 
> *This argument that going through chemo somehow gives people a magical ability to suffer and perform better aerobically is ludicrous*.


I actually think that the bolded is a misstatement of the argument.

I think the kind of thing that Armstrong has said, is that it gave him perspective. Apparently some cancer patient wrote to Armstrong when he was diagnosed, and said something like, 'you don't know it now, but we're the lucky ones.' He also said that after he recovered he realized the 'cancer gave him room to live.' 

This kind of stuff may be seen as bs now, especially being that it seems that Armstong is the same kind of immature jackass that he was pre cancer, but I really think it connected with people that have gone through any traumas in life.

As for the physical recovery, I'd agree that it would seem like cancer and the chemo regimen would take a lot out of your former abilities, and Armstrong has also noted that "you can have all the heart in the world but if you don't have the legs, forget about it."

As for what Armstrong would have accomplished if he hadn't doped? Maybe a top triathlete? As another poster noted, he might not have gotten cancer either.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

trailrunner68 said:


> In a theoretical clean environment he would have been a decent one day racer. He would have won GT stages, non-mountainous ones unless he got lucky like Hincapie, short stage races that favored a punchy rider, and maybe a monument or two like LBL, Flanders, or Lombardi. He never would have placed in the top ten of the Tour.


Prior to cancer, he won a World Championship and an edition of Fleche Wallonne and Clasica San Sebastian each. Whether he did those clean is another argument. But he was built like a real classics contender, he could contend in Giro di Lombardia (depending on the route, which changes every other year) or maybe even Milano-Sanremo. He was too big for Liege, and I don't know how he is on the cobbles.


----------



## Imaking20 (Mar 2, 2012)

Wait - Lance has been proven guilty? I think the reason he's STILL in this position is because people choose to believe he's been guilty all along.

Haters gonna hate.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

against a clean field he'd have been the best
against a doped filed he was the best
being clean against a doped field ........


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

orange_julius said:


> Prior to cancer, he won a World Championship and an edition of Fleche Wallonne and Clasica San Sebastian each. Whether he did those clean is another argument. But he was built like a real classics contender, he could contend in Giro di Lombardia (depending on the route, which changes every other year) or maybe even Milano-Sanremo. He was too big for Liege, and I don't know how he is on the cobbles.


He was doping prior to cancer. At the very least he started as an amateur with the national team when Chris Carmichael was injecting the kids with drugs. He started seeing Dr. Ferrari in either '93 or '94.

He is on record as hating Paris Roubaix, but I don't recall him ever riding it. While on the juice he had decent performances at Flanders.

As for LBL, I think that if the drugs were taken out of the peloton then the smaller riders' endurance would suffer on longer, tougher classics and things would swing back a bit to riders with more mass. Maybe LBL's route would still be too much for him.

A real tragedy of the EPO era is not seeing what Ullrich could have done riding the classics.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

trailrunner68 said:


> Armstrong's VO2Max was average for a pro.


I think a VO2 max of 83 would be higher than your average pro. And as someone else in this thread mentioned, numbers are not everything. Here is what Joe Friel has to say about VO2 max,



Joe Friel said:


> Would the highest VO2max win the race and the lowest finish last? Not at all. This has been done in several different sudies and the research has found no relationship between race results ranking and VO2max ranking - among elite athletes.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

trailrunner68 said:


> He was doping prior to cancer. At the very least he started as an amateur with the national team when Chris Carmichael was injecting the kids with drugs. He started seeing Dr. Ferrari in either '93 or '94.
> 
> He is on record as hating Paris Roubaix, but I don't recall him ever riding it. While on the juice he had decent performances at Flanders.
> 
> ...


I agree with your assessments. It's really too bad we didn't get to see Ullrich really fight in the classics. Although iirc he won one edition of HEW Cyclassic at the height of his popularity. Which is to say just past his peak results. And he did win the Olympic Gold.


----------



## The Moontrane (Nov 28, 2005)

orange_julius said:


> Prior to cancer, he won a World Championship and an edition of Fleche Wallonne and Clasica San Sebastian each. Whether he did those clean is another argument. But he was built like a real classics contender, he could contend in Giro di Lombardia (depending on the route, which changes every other year) or maybe even Milano-Sanremo. He was too big for Liege, and I don't know how he is on the cobbles.


Lance was twice 2nd at LBL.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*exactly*



41ants said:


> ... And what if no one else was doping.


all his top rivals were dopers

it's like Sosa and McGuire, they were doped batters blasting HRs off doped pitchers

level playing field


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*actually he took 2nd twice @ Amstel*



The Moontrane said:


> Lance was twice 2nd at LBL.


he had a shot at winning LBL but got no help from his breakaway companions


----------



## il sogno (Jul 15, 2002)

atpjunkie said:


> all his top rivals were dopers
> 
> it's like Sosa and McGuire, they were doped batters blasting HRs off doped pitchers
> 
> level playing field


No level playing field. The French weren't doping. 

After the Festina scandal the French teams got together and agreed not to dope. It was for the sake of saving the sport of cycling in France. If there was another Festina scandal with another French team caught doping, sponsorship $$ would dry up for cycling in France. 

Remember how pathetic the French teams were back then? They were the butt of everybody's jokes. It was because they were riding clean.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

loubnc said:


> For all anyone knows they could have been what caused the cancer in the first place.


Maybe they could have exacerbated it, but I think causing it is very unlikely. Cancer is overwhelmingly caused by environmental mutagens (i.e. carcinogens), but once you have the out of control cells reproducing themselves hormones can influence how fast they grow.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

atpjunkie said:


> all his top rivals were dopers
> 
> it's like Sosa and McGuire, they were doped batters blasting HRs off doped pitchers
> 
> level playing field


Sorry ATP but the level playing field is a tired old argument by now. It's like formula one racing, big teams have access, in F1, to the better technology. McLaren is not in the same league as Sauber, just like USPS was not in the same league as Euskaltel.

So is the everybody doped argument. Cadel for instance is still the same rider he was in 2006. He didn't just grow a pair like some would say in the Pro forum.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*The French Anti-Doping Myth*



il sogno said:


> No level playing field. The French weren't doping.
> 
> After the Festina scandal the French teams got together and agreed not to dope. It was for the sake of saving the sport of cycling in France. If there was another Festina scandal with another French team caught doping, sponsorship $$ would dry up for cycling in France.
> 
> Remember how pathetic the French teams were back then? They were the butt of everybody's jokes. It was because they were riding clean.


Actually not true. Post Festina there was plenty French doping. French cycling hit a low point due to a few over promoted talents being paid like GC contenders by their French teams when they did not have the talent. The best French professional rider was doping for 20+ years and was never caught once. _Interesting_ how the French national heros didn't get caught. 

Cycling great Jeannie Longo's husband is arrested over suspected EPO buy - ESPN

Add in the 7 time KOM champ in the supposedly dopiest era ever not getting caught again. 



> Everyone present knew he was referring to Richard Virenque, who is quite popular in France. At the time, Virenque was preparing to win his seventh polka-dot jersey - worn by the best climber in the race, it is the second-most-prestigious jersey behind the yellow jersey of the overall winner.
> 
> After accomplishing that record feat, Virenque retired, ending a career in which he came to symbolize the doping scandals that haunted the sport in the late 1990's.
> 
> ...


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/23/sports/sportsspecial/23drugs.html?_r=1&ref=richardvirenque

And with festina, it was the police and not the anti-doping people that caught them. 



> Virenque was the leader of the Festina team in 1998, when border police inspected the car of a team trainer and discovered an array of performance-enhancing drugs. The incident set off a cascade of revelations that embarrassed the sport and nearly crippled the Tour de France.



The french system may have gotten better PR, but I am not sure that might not be due to the overly close relationship between ASO, the anti-doping folks and certain French media outlets being fed a steady diet of leaks and information. Frankly all the national organizations may have been about the same.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Nob said:


> Lance went from an official racing weight of 171# pre cancer to a racing weight for the TDF of 158# after cancer treatment with the same/measured measured strength and Vo2 max. Not a huge weight drop by cancer standards and cisplatinum chemo treatment (i lost close to 50#) but then Lance went in more fit than most with little fat to loose @ 6% and 25 years old.
> 
> Armstrong has recorded an aerobic capacity of 83.8 mL/kg/min (VO2 max), much higher than the average person (40–50), but lower than some other Tour De France winners, such as Miguel Indurain (88.0, although reports exist that Indurain tested at 92–94) and Greg LeMond (92.5). At his peak, LA had a resting heart rate of 32–34 beats per minute (bpm) with a maximum heart rate of 201 bpm.
> 
> ...


The weight loss was a myth. Lance was skinny when he rode on Motorola and he barely finished the Tour. 









Hard to say what his career would have been as he doped from a very early age. Still very talented, would have won Flanders a few times


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

Coolhand said:


> Actually not true. Post Festina there was plenty French doping...Add in the 7 time KOM champ in the supposedly dopiest era ever not getting caught again.


Bringing up Virenque is a good argument for the French crackdown. After Festina the French passed new laws and required longitudinal testing of cyclist. Riders like Virenque and Jalabert stopped racing with a French license. Both switched to Swiss licenses, if I recall correctly. Neither of those riders rode on a French team after Festina. Armstrong lived in France at the time. He moved to Spain when French criminalization of sports doping was passed.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Maybe they could have exacerbated it, but I think causing it is very unlikely. Cancer is overwhelmingly caused by environmental mutagens (i.e. carcinogens), but once you have the out of control cells reproducing themselves hormones can influence how fast they grow.


Cortisone suppresses the immune system. See Strock and Kaiter. Some cancers are caused by viruses. 

How many studies have been done of people who are abusing EPO, steroids, testosterone, hCG, insulin, cortisone, hGH, who ride 800k a week?

In addition people who consume large amounts of caffeine and are binge drinkers?

It's extremely unlikely to even find test subjects who fit that profile.


----------



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

41ants said:


> ... And what if no one else was doping.


That's the real question.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Cableguy said:


> I think a VO2 max of 83 would be higher than your average pro. And as someone else in this thread mentioned, numbers are not everything. Here is what Joe Friel has to say about VO2 max,



81.2 was the absolute highest value Ed Coyle ever recorded. In I think Oct of 1999, Coyle had him at 71.5, very average for a pro endurance athlete.

You might be able to find it here

The Science of Sport: Coyle and Armstrong: Research "errors" evaluation

or in the links Science of Sport attached from Coyle. In _From Lance to Landis_
Armstrong's numbers are on page 282.

The highest VO2 max Coyle recorded for Armstrong was 81.2 in Sept. '93.

Now that I read this I realize that this fraud Armstrong even had Coyle a PhD in physiology, perverting science to ingratiate himself with Armstrong.

Coyle actually testified to this nonsense in the SCA trial: "I mean, just genetically he was born with a large heart....He's probably, you know, a five-foot-ten individual who naturally has a heart the size of a person who's six-foot-six, and he grew it to a heart the size of a person who's seven-foot-six." Actually I don't know! GTFOH...:nonod:

.


----------



## nOOky (Mar 20, 2009)

I didn't realize someone on this forum had actual proof, and why haven't you turned it over to the USADA yet?!


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

nOOky said:


> I didn't realize someone on this forum had actual proof, and why haven't you turned it over to the USADA yet?!


The USADA has the proof... and we'll see. Everyone here has their opinion. And imo LA is not just a doper... but a lying bully that ruined anyone that got in his way.


----------



## mgringle (May 20, 2011)

What would of he accomplished?

Exactly what he did accomplish!


----------



## nOOky (Mar 20, 2009)

pedalruns said:


> The USADA has the proof... and we'll see. Everyone here has their opinion. And imo LA is not just a doper... but a lying bully that ruined anyone that got in his way.


Okay, we'll soon see if they have actual proof. From the post I'm assuming all you here have actual proof though as he's already guilty? I'd hate to have people like that serving jury duty sheesh.
FWIW I'm not a L.A. fan by any means, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. I assume most of us would want to be treated the same way?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Chris-X said:


> Cortisone suppresses the immune system. See Strock and Kaiter. Some cancers are caused by viruses.


This is true, but as far as I'm aware no significant link between between a virus and testicular cancer has been established and the link between immune suppression and testicular cancer is with pretty profound suppression (e.g. HIV/AIDS). One would think if the latter were occurring a whole host of opportunistic infections & other diseases would be taking hold.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Dwayne Barry said:


> This is true, but as far as I'm aware no significant link between between *a virus and testicular cancer has been established* and the link between immune suppression and testicular cancer is with pretty profound suppression (e.g. HIV/AIDS). *One would think if the latter were occurring a whole host of opportunistic infections & other diseases would be taking hold*.


What possible ethical studies on humans could establish this?

For years the AMA said that there was no evidence that Steroids even work to enhance performance and now there is no one saying they don't enhance performance.

We do know that Carmichael was carrying around a briefcase of drugs and that more than a couple of his riders including Armstrong got profoundly ill so I don't think it's much of a stretch to say there's a good chance Armstrong caused his cancer by his doping. To nail it down? No, can't do that but for years tobacco companies kept the cancer charge at bay too.


VN: What was the initial diagnosis when you fell ill?

GS: Yeah. Well, at one point, they were concerned because I was immunosuppressed and tested me for AIDS. Then it was thought I had lymphatic cancer and biopsies were done. And finally, they found a serious viral infection from what they later found was human parvovirus. Like I said, it’s unusual for a young healthy male to suffer from symptoms like that. *In this era I also suffered from thrush (an oral yeast infection), most often seen in those who are immunocompromised*, and a very severe case of Bell’s palsy. Bell’s palsy is a facial paralysis that is not uncommon and is thought to be caused by a viral infection. 90 percent of those with it have full recovery; I didn’t. So you can see some common things affected me in uncommon ways, which is typical of an immunocompromised state such as induced by cortisone.

Candidiasis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

The doping causing Armstrong's cancer is probably a stretch. It is more likely that his use of steroids, HGH, and especially EPO could have accelerated tumor growth. 

What we do know is that the doping tests should have been positive because of the tumor markers. His cancer should have been caught very early when treatment would have been easy. Either positive tests were being ignored or he was using masking agents. The masking agent answer seems most likely. So it is probably fair to say that Armstrong is responsible for his cancer reaching stage four.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

trailrunner68 said:


> The doping causing Armstrong's cancer is probably a stretch. It is more likely that his use of steroids, HGH, and especially EPO could have accelerated tumor growth.
> 
> What we do know is that the doping tests should have been positive because of the tumor markers. His cancer should have been caught very early when treatment would have been easy. Either positive tests were being ignored or he was using masking agents. The masking agent answer seems most likely. So it is probably fair to say that Armstrong is responsible for his cancer reaching stage four.


AS THE CYCLIST AND CANCER CRUSADER FACES - 01.24.11 - SI Vault

After Armstrong's cancer diagnosis, former teammates say, even Ferrari questioned his methods. "I remember when we were on a training ride in 2002, Lance told me that Ferrari had been paranoid that he had helped cause the cancer and became more conservative after that," says Landis. (Ferrari, again, declined to talk to SI for this story.)


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

*explain the bold*



trailrunner68 said:


> The doping causing Armstrong's cancer is probably a stretch. It is more likely that his use of steroids, HGH, and especially EPO could have accelerated tumor growth.
> 
> *What we do know is that the doping tests should have been positive because of the tumor markers.* His cancer should have been caught very early when treatment would have been easy. Either positive tests were being ignored or he was using masking agents. The masking agent answer seems most likely. So it is probably fair to say that Armstrong is responsible for his cancer reaching stage four.


Do doping tests also detect cancer?


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

Local Hero said:


> Do doping tests also detect cancer?


His HCG levels, a marker for testicular cancer, were off the chart and would have certainly been caught by the standard steroid tests. Normal beta-hCG level in males is one to two nanograms per milliliter of blood. Armstrong's was 109,000 ng/ml. HCG is used after steroid cycles to stimulate the production of testosterone, which is supressed by the steroids. Thus its detection is part of standard steroid testing.


----------



## Chris Oz (Oct 8, 2005)

atpjunkie said:


> against a clean field he'd have been the best
> against a doped filed he was the best
> being clean against a doped field ........


I normally not weigh in to doping thread for fear of being flamed, but you can't ignore that different people have different responses to different drugs. Leaving a side whether all riders had access to the same drugs, techniques and expertise, it is still not possible to say whether the best riders where winning during that era. Drugs didn't just make everyone faster they made some people much faster proportionately that others. This changed the overall field. 

As suggested by others it is likely that many of the top riders during that time would not have been as significant or competitive as they were. Possibly some of the riders who were middle of the peleton would have been Tour winners and household names.

Like other technologies drugs changed the nature of the sport and the outcomes.

This is not a unique problem to drugs or cycling. If you follow tennis I gather there was general consensus at the time that Michael Chan was technically the best player in the world but he wasn't number 1. Racket technology changed the sport so that all you need was a really big server and an ability to return a few serves. The complaint was that the rackets had grown enormous and the sweat spot became the whole racket so anyone could return the ball. Tennis tranformed into a big hitting base line game with a procession of tall big serving players that struggled when ball skills where required. If you compare video of the game from the 70s to the 90 and 00's it is not the same game. 

This was OK for tennis because the rackets weren't expensive, everyone could buy them and most importantly they didn't kill you. Unfortunately, drugs are a very different.

Personally I think the best thing to do is put brackets around the whole period.

Finally re Lance, I doubt the USADA case will go well for him.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

trailrunner68 said:


> His HCG levels, a marker for testicular cancer, were off the chart and would have certainly been caught by the standard steroid tests. Normal beta-hCG level in males is one to two nanograms per milliliter of blood. Armstrong's was 109,000 ng/ml. HCG is used after steroid cycles to stimulate the production of testosterone, which is supressed by the steroids. Thus its detection is part of standard steroid testing.


Interesting. 

Were they looking for hcg in 1995 and 1996? 

What is used to mask hcg?


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

Local Hero said:


> Were they looking for hcg in 1995 and 1996?
> 
> What is used to mask hcg?


It was definitely tested for.


----------



## DrRoebuck (May 10, 2004)

loubnc said:


> For all anyone knows they could have been what caused the cancer in the first place.


This is something that is never talked about. One of the side effects of using testosterone is testicular cancer. Duh.


----------



## captain stubbing (Mar 30, 2011)

*french teams and rider do appear to be cleaner than most.........*



Coolhand said:


> Actually not true. Post Festina there was plenty French doping. French cycling hit a low point due to a few over promoted talents being paid like GC contenders by their French teams when they did not have the talent. The best French professional rider was doping for 20+ years and was never caught once. _Interesting_ how the French national heros didn't get caught.
> 
> Cycling great Jeannie Longo's husband is arrested over suspected EPO buy - ESPN
> 
> ...


L?Equipe Calculates Index Of Suspicion For Teams And Nations | Cyclingnews.com


----------

