advertisement


Lance Armstrong to lose his TDF titles?

How much of a benefit do drugs produce? Say LA does a stage in 4 hours on drugs eg epo and does it 3 days later sans dope how much time would be saved - any ideas? Anybody tried them?
 
This isn't answering your answer as such but being an experimental person, i have tried most illicit drugs and from those experiences it tells me that they must make a significant difference the their performance. I know a guy who took an 'e' after a heavy night out before the manchester 10k. he did it in 42 minutes with very little training, he's also 45. he hasn't ran it within 8 minutes despite with more training and no piss ups the night before since.
 
A friends mountain bike group had one guy who did a few months course of growth hormone. He went from being dropped on the climbs to being up with the fast guys (who are pretty quick). His eye sight improved and he only needed about 4 hours sleep a night.
 
kasperhauser said:
I do see it possible for someone to come along who is such a freak that they actually could, clean, defeat a dirty field. Is Armstrong that guy? Hard to say.
Click to expand...
You have to be a bit of freak to participate in top level pro cycling to start with. Armstrong is an exceptional athlete but so were the other guys at the top. To beat such a wide field so convincingly over so many years raises questions, because it's extraordinary and because cycling has been so tainted by doping.

kasperhauser said:
The thing is, Armstrong is a bit of a pop culture icon over here. He's in commercials, has cameo appearances in movies – in a lot of minds (mostly among people who don't follow cycling) he's an example of the whole American spirit, excellence in the face of adversity, git-r-done thing. I get that too - I really really want his story to be real, but I'm not naïve enough to stand up and proclaim he rode clean. As I've said before, I'm just a data guy. If the data doesn't show me dirt, if he rode drugged but beat the system, then it's Armstrong-1, system-0, and time for system to up their game.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but the American icon shtick is just not a good enough reason to give him a pass. Don't you see a contradiction between the first part of your paragraph and the end? I know he's made pots of money for his foundation (and himself) and massively contributed to the appeal of road cycling in the US and elsewhere, but surely that should be beside the point, especially for a "data guy". Ullrich inspired many for a while in a German market that until the Telekom saga was not very big on the TdF and road cycling in general. The system is broken precisely because of this attitude: "he's a good guy and good for the commercial side of our sport, so let's cut him some slack here and turn a blind eye there". UCI have been half-hearted and have not gone far enough. Hats off to USADA for trying to clean things up. Catching smart well-organized people is difficult, so I'm fine with them going at this in any way that makes sense and is legal.

kasperhauser said:
I am dead set against is the notion that winning the TDF is tantamount to signing on for a lifetime of expensive and emotionally damaging litigation and hounding. It is very much a case of guilty until proven innocent; everyone cheats, it's just a matter of catching them, and even if they aren't caught, they still cheated. When I say the whole thing is broken, that's what I mean.
Click to expand...
See above. USADA have just pursued this in a rigorous way, as part of their mandate to combat doping in elite sports. The thing is broken because of lax enforcement, not the opposite. (Besides, Armstrong hasn't exactly been shy when it comes to litigation, actual or threatened.)

kasperhauser said:
I know the Brits will come back and say, "Untrue! Our Bradley won clean, fair and square!" Which puts us back to your question: can someone, clean, outrun the best of the rest doped to the hilt? If Wiggins can do/did it, why is it so hard to believe Armstrong did it?)
Click to expand...

I have no idea whether Wiggins is clean. If evidence or even credible allegations come up, I hope they will be investigated just as thoroughly. It's the only way for cycling to regain some credibility and for us punters to not automatically suspect every outstanding performance is tainted.
 
JCL said:
A friends mountain bike group had one guy who did a few months course of growth hormone. He went from being dropped on the climbs to being up with the fast guys (who are pretty quick). His eye sight improved and he only needed about 4 hours sleep a night.
Click to expand...
:)

There's a journal on the web somewhere of a veteran cyclist who with the guidance and monitoring of a medic tries all of the usual perf enhancing drugs, it's a fascinating read. I'll try and find it.
 
Maybe not the right place to ask this but anyone else here thinking epo and dpo must have long term bad effects on the body? If the bone marrow has to produce the extra cells, doesn't that system self correct or go wrong after a while? Kidneys produce less epo after a time in response?
 
gassor said:
How much of a benefit do drugs produce? Say LA does a stage in 4 hours on drugs eg epo and does it 3 days later sans dope how much time would be saved - any ideas? Anybody tried them?
Click to expand...

You just have to have a look at Landis winning stage 17 in the 2006 TdF. He'd bonked horrendously on the previous stage 16. His comeback at the time was amazing (I remember watching it on TV live), however obviously enhanced (by synthetic testosterone in this case).

It is often this ability for recovery that aids more so than the enhanced mechanical performance provided by the substance.
 
Indeed. EPO will of course allow considerably higher capacity to carry oxygen around, but in simple terms hgh, steroids and/or testosterone will enable much enhanced repair and recovery to various degrees. The ability to recover to optimal state is hugely valuable for an extended competition like the TDF.
 
Came across this on my evening walk yesterday:

photo10da.jpg


I'll let folks draw their own conclusions. For me, among other things, it reminds me there's a lot more to life than riding a bike.
 
We want to stay clear of the pattern of the innocent guy being haunted forever by envious people.
We also want to stay clear of picking out one not so innocent guy to make an example.

On the other hand, I am in favour of draconian measures against a certain category of people,
who are very successful, generally smart and talented, often admired, and are thoroughly specialized in cheating.

All the evidence concerning Armstrong points that way. Someone who took cheating to another level.
With people like that I say, go all the way to expose and punish them completely.
That includes finding ways to get past his current attempts at damage control. No quarter.
 
kasperhauser will be along shortly to tell us what a no-good, self-serving, publicity hungry liar George Hincapie really is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top