pmcg76 said:
Good post. Could've written it myself. Never went as far as wearing a postal jersey, but I did have a '99 edition postal Trek, and was a staunch Lance fan til 2004.
-
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Good post. Could've written it myself. Never went as far as wearing a postal jersey, but I did have a '99 edition postal Trek, and was a staunch Lance fan til 2004.
Kennf1 said:
OK all . . . on a very serious note. What is your opinion of the following:
Live High, Train Low regimen has been shown to natrually increase the bodies EPO production. http://altitudetraining.com/cat/main/sports/research/PracticalApproachBurke
Armstrong's coach is a leading proponent of Live High, Train Low http://www.trainright.com/articles.asp?uid=4260
One of the interesting advantagous of natural EPO increase from "Live High, Train Low" done correctly is that the bodies ability to buffer lactic acid is increased whereas there is not a similar increase from taking synthetic EPO and not going through the whole LHTL routine for months on and off.
[As opposed to EPO increase from injection of synthetic PEDs] altitude exposure may be more effective anyway, if the increased buffering capacity of muscles that seems to occur with altitude exposure contributes to the enhancement of performance. (See link to first article
Moreoever, many just don't do it . . . .
"The main problem is a shortage of suitable high altitude training venues, so for most athletes this option means the expense and stress of international travel and of living away from home for up to a month. Loss of heat acclimatization may also be a problem if the high and low training venues are too cool." (See, 1st link)
The studies also show the effects of LHTL last up to four weeks or more after coming down from altitude. Armstrong has been in Aspen, Co training at 8000 to 12000 feet on and off for the last several months including most of the month of June. The "four week" benefit will last just a few days beyond the stage to Ventoux.
In addition to LHTL its pretty clear that Armstrong's coach is monitoring the lactic acid buffering increase in Armstrong since pre-Giro (3-4% increase in buffering ability)
(Must See, http://www.thoughtforfood-BroDeal-AlpedHuez-ElGrimpeur-all-secretly-idolize-Armstrong.com)
So . . . is it even within the realm of possibility that . . . .
A) Armstrong gets the benefits (for a four week period) of natural increase in EPO due to a very regimented LHTL schedule monitored by one of the top coaches in the world on the subject.
B) Has the money/resources to buy the house in Aspen and fly his private jet back and forth to easily "live high" and "train low" (i.e. fly out to Crit. in Nevada City at 2000ft and then back to Aspen and then out to Annecy).
C) He gets the advantages of natural boost in bodies EPO due to physiological response to LHTL and at the same time gets an actual advantage to synthetic EPO in that his bodies lactic acid buffering ability gets and increase that is not accompanied with synthetic EPO increase due to banned substance?
D) As a result . . . he gets benefit of EPO due to strenuous, costly, and time consuming regimen (probably explains why he only focused on TDF and didn't do a lot of other races to allow him to maintain this focused regimen that is designed for EPO increase for a four week period, just long enough to encompass the TDF) and is better than those that dope because his bodies lactic acid threshold is higher.
E) As a result . . . he won because he sacrificed and trained harder and smarter.
F) To all the doubters . . . is this even in the realm of possibility???? If you look at the facts and the studies . . . this appears to be exactly what he is doing. I am not aware of anyone else during the time he won the 7 TDFs doing the same regimen. In fact he was often cricized because he "went off and trained and just showed up for the TDF."
G) Is it possible that he won due to this and not the use of PEDs????
byu123 said:OK all . . . on a very serious note. What is your opinion of the following:
Live High, Train Low regimen has been shown to natrually increase the bodies EPO production. http://altitudetraining.com/cat/main/sports/research/PracticalApproachBurke
Armstrong's coach is a leading proponent of Live High, Train Low http://www.trainright.com/articles.asp?uid=4260
One of the interesting advantagous of natural EPO increase from "Live High, Train Low" done correctly is that the bodies ability to buffer lactic acid is increased whereas there is not a similar increase from taking synthetic EPO and not going through the whole LHTL routine for months on and off.
[As opposed to EPO increase from injection of synthetic PEDs] altitude exposure may be more effective anyway, if the increased buffering capacity of muscles that seems to occur with altitude exposure contributes to the enhancement of performance. (See link to first article
Moreoever, many just don't do it . . . .
"The main problem is a shortage of suitable high altitude training venues, so for most athletes this option means the expense and stress of international travel and of living away from home for up to a month. Loss of heat acclimatization may also be a problem if the high and low training venues are too cool." (See, 1st link)
The studies also show the effects of LHTL last up to four weeks or more after coming down from altitude. Armstrong has been in Aspen, Co training at 8000 to 12000 feet on and off for the last several months including most of the month of June. The "four week" benefit will last just a few days beyond the stage to Ventoux.
In addition to LHTL its pretty clear that Armstrong's coach is monitoring the lactic acid buffering increase in Armstrong since pre-Giro (3-4% increase in buffering ability)
(Must See, http://www.thoughtforfood-BroDeal-AlpedHuez-ElGrimpeur-all-secretly-idolize-Armstrong.com)
So . . . is it even within the realm of possibility that . . . .
A) Armstrong gets the benefits (for a four week period) of natural increase in EPO due to a very regimented LHTL schedule monitored by one of the top coaches in the world on the subject.
B) Has the money/resources to buy the house in Aspen and fly his private jet back and forth to easily "live high" and "train low" (i.e. fly out to Crit. in Nevada City at 2000ft and then back to Aspen and then out to Annecy).
C) He gets the advantages of natural boost in bodies EPO due to physiological response to LHTL and at the same time gets an actual advantage to synthetic EPO in that his bodies lactic acid buffering ability gets and increase that is not accompanied with synthetic EPO increase due to banned substance?
D) As a result . . . he gets benefit of EPO due to strenuous, costly, and time consuming regimen (probably explains why he only focused on TDF and didn't do a lot of other races to allow him to maintain this focused regimen that is designed for EPO increase for a four week period, just long enough to encompass the TDF) and is better than those that dope because his bodies lactic acid threshold is higher.
E) As a result . . . he won because he sacrificed and trained harder and smarter.
F) To all the doubters . . . is this even in the realm of possibility???? If you look at the facts and the studies . . . this appears to be exactly what he is doing. I am not aware of anyone else during the time he won the 7 TDFs doing the same regimen. In fact he was often cricized because he "went off and trained and just showed up for the TDF."
G) Is it possible that he won due to this and not the use of PEDs????
The EPO was synthetic. Not natural. S Y N T H E T I C.
Then read Betsy Andreau's testimony and coroborated by both her husband and others (one of whom lied later to save her job, but Lemond got it out of her on tape)
S Y N T H E T I C.
BYU, you are going on the basis of all riders either being doped or clean, well from 98, it is widely held that most of the French teams were clean-er so maybe somebody like Moncoutie or Bassons might have been a contender if everybody was clean. Yes, many will laugh at that.
This is the big, big issue with doping, we dont know if it effects everyone the same, somebody with a lower haematocrit level could benefit more than somebody with a higher haematocrit level so thats not a level playing field to start of. There are too many ifs and probables to make an accurate judgement call on who would be best if everybody doped.
If Lance was clean, he would never have won the Tour, if everybody was clean, well we just cannot predict that cos there are too many variables. Lance focusing solely on the Tour was an advantage but that is why he cannot be held in the same esteem as Merckx, Hinault, Coppi, Indurain or even riders like LeMond.
Just a reminder, Lance based himself in Nice in 99 but once he won the Tour he quickly got outta town. The French had a very strong policy on doping and before the Tour, Lance was not exactly big news in France so in all likelyhood wouldnt have bothered him much.
This is the big, big issue with doping, we dont know if it effects everyone the same, somebody with a lower haematocrit level could benefit more than somebody with a higher haematocrit level so thats not a level playing field to start of. There are too many ifs and probables to make an accurate judgement call on who would be best if everybody doped.
If Lance was clean, he would never have won the Tour, if everybody was clean, well we just cannot predict that cos there are too many variables. Lance focusing solely on the Tour was an advantage but that is why he cannot be held in the same esteem as Merckx, Hinault, Coppi, Indurain or even riders like LeMond.
Just a reminder, Lance based himself in Nice in 99 but once he won the Tour he quickly got outta town. The French had a very strong policy on doping and before the Tour, Lance was not exactly big news in France so in all likelyhood wouldnt have bothered him much.
pmcg76 said:
In all seriousness . . . is the house in Aspen, hiring and spending time with a coach like Chris Carmichael, actually doing the LHTL routine which is documented to natrually boost the bodies EPO, . . . all a charade? Who else maintained that kind of regimen for the 7 years he won the TDF???? Sure everyone trains hard but to that extent??? I won't argue the point that some criticize Armstrong for only doing the TDF. Its a valid point. But the reason why was so he could follow this insanely difficult, time consuming, complicated training regimen. That is a fact. No one else equalled this type of regimen during those years. Many of his teamates and competitors have attested to this. Is it possible that this explains his dominance during that time???
Too many unknowns.
I don't know Lance's training schedule, but I'm not sure if he was living at Aspen and then training at lower elevation. You point to the Nevada City Crit, but that was just one day. He very could have been living and training at altitude, which had no real effect in a majority of the athletes (according to the link). Plus, if I recall correctly, he and Levi were in Aspen prior to the Giro for a good stretch. I don't know if it resulted in a better performance than he normally would have had, but it certainly didn't produce a great result.
More to the point, as the link you posted suggests, these benefits aren't universal:
"Drs. Baker and Hopkins go on to explain that the average athlete can expect an enhancement of performance of a few percent from living high and training low, but it is now clear that some athletes get an even bigger boost, while others may get no benefit at all."
Haven't read it all, but it basically says that you can get similar benefits at normal altitude by sleeping in hypoxic tent/room which is cheaper than moving to Colorado.
So, while it is an interest read, I don't think it is dispositive on the question of whether Lance doped.
byu123 said:OK all . . . on a very serious note. What is your opinion of the following:
Live High, Train Low regimen has been shown to natrually increase the bodies EPO production. http://altitudetraining.com/cat/main/sports/research/PracticalApproachBurke
Armstrong's coach is a leading proponent of Live High, Train Low http://www.trainright.com/articles.asp?uid=4260
One of the interesting advantagous of natural EPO increase from "Live High, Train Low" done correctly is that the bodies ability to buffer lactic acid is increased whereas there is not a similar increase from taking synthetic EPO and not going through the whole LHTL routine for months on and off.
[As opposed to EPO increase from injection of synthetic PEDs] altitude exposure may be more effective anyway, if the increased buffering capacity of muscles that seems to occur with altitude exposure contributes to the enhancement of performance. (See link to first article
Moreoever, many just don't do it . . . .
"The main problem is a shortage of suitable high altitude training venues, so for most athletes this option means the expense and stress of international travel and of living away from home for up to a month. Loss of heat acclimatization may also be a problem if the high and low training venues are too cool." (See, 1st link)
The studies also show the effects of LHTL last up to four weeks or more after coming down from altitude. Armstrong has been in Aspen, Co training at 8000 to 12000 feet on and off for the last several months including most of the month of June. The "four week" benefit will last just a few days beyond the stage to Ventoux.
In addition to LHTL its pretty clear that Armstrong's coach is monitoring the lactic acid buffering increase in Armstrong since pre-Giro (3-4% increase in buffering ability)
(Must See, http://www.thoughtforfood-BroDeal-AlpedHuez-ElGrimpeur-all-secretly-idolize-Armstrong.com)
So . . . is it even within the realm of possibility that . . . .
A) Armstrong gets the benefits (for a four week period) of natural increase in EPO due to a very regimented LHTL schedule monitored by one of the top coaches in the world on the subject.
B) Has the money/resources to buy the house in Aspen and fly his private jet back and forth to easily "live high" and "train low" (i.e. fly out to Crit. in Nevada City at 2000ft and then back to Aspen and then out to Annecy).
C) He gets the advantages of natural boost in bodies EPO due to physiological response to LHTL and at the same time gets an actual advantage to synthetic EPO in that his bodies lactic acid buffering ability gets and increase that is not accompanied with synthetic EPO increase due to banned substance?
D) As a result . . . he gets benefit of EPO due to strenuous, costly, and time consuming regimen (probably explains why he only focused on TDF and didn't do a lot of other races to allow him to maintain this focused regimen that is designed for EPO increase for a four week period, just long enough to encompass the TDF) and is better than those that dope because his bodies lactic acid threshold is higher.
E) As a result . . . he won because he sacrificed and trained harder and smarter.
F) To all the doubters . . . is this even in the realm of possibility???? If you look at the facts and the studies . . . this appears to be exactly what he is doing. I am not aware of anyone else during the time he won the 7 TDFs doing the same regimen. In fact he was often cricized because he "went off and trained and just showed up for the TDF."
G) Is it possible that he won due to this and not the use of PEDs????
I don't know Lance's training schedule, but I'm not sure if he was living at Aspen and then training at lower elevation. You point to the Nevada City Crit, but that was just one day. He very could have been living and training at altitude, which had no real effect in a majority of the athletes (according to the link). Plus, if I recall correctly, he and Levi were in Aspen prior to the Giro for a good stretch. I don't know if it resulted in a better performance than he normally would have had, but it certainly didn't produce a great result.
More to the point, as the link you posted suggests, these benefits aren't universal:
"Drs. Baker and Hopkins go on to explain that the average athlete can expect an enhancement of performance of a few percent from living high and training low, but it is now clear that some athletes get an even bigger boost, while others may get no benefit at all."
Haven't read it all, but it basically says that you can get similar benefits at normal altitude by sleeping in hypoxic tent/room which is cheaper than moving to Colorado.
So, while it is an interest read, I don't think it is dispositive on the question of whether Lance doped.
byu123 said:OK all . . . on a very serious note. What is your opinion of the following:
Live High, Train Low regimen has been shown to natrually increase the bodies EPO production. http://altitudetraining.com/cat/main/sports/research/PracticalApproachBurke
Armstrong's coach is a leading proponent of Live High, Train Low http://www.trainright.com/articles.asp?uid=4260
One of the interesting advantagous of natural EPO increase from "Live High, Train Low" done correctly is that the bodies ability to buffer lactic acid is increased whereas there is not a similar increase from taking synthetic EPO and not going through the whole LHTL routine for months on and off.
[As opposed to EPO increase from injection of synthetic PEDs] altitude exposure may be more effective anyway, if the increased buffering capacity of muscles that seems to occur with altitude exposure contributes to the enhancement of performance. (See link to first article
Moreoever, many just don't do it . . . .
"The main problem is a shortage of suitable high altitude training venues, so for most athletes this option means the expense and stress of international travel and of living away from home for up to a month. Loss of heat acclimatization may also be a problem if the high and low training venues are too cool." (See, 1st link)
The studies also show the effects of LHTL last up to four weeks or more after coming down from altitude. Armstrong has been in Aspen, Co training at 8000 to 12000 feet on and off for the last several months including most of the month of June. The "four week" benefit will last just a few days beyond the stage to Ventoux.
In addition to LHTL its pretty clear that Armstrong's coach is monitoring the lactic acid buffering increase in Armstrong since pre-Giro (3-4% increase in buffering ability)
(Must See, http://www.thoughtforfood-BroDeal-AlpedHuez-ElGrimpeur-all-secretly-idolize-Armstrong.com)
So . . . is it even within the realm of possibility that . . . .
A) Armstrong gets the benefits (for a four week period) of natural increase in EPO due to a very regimented LHTL schedule monitored by one of the top coaches in the world on the subject.
B) Has the money/resources to buy the house in Aspen and fly his private jet back and forth to easily "live high" and "train low" (i.e. fly out to Crit. in Nevada City at 2000ft and then back to Aspen and then out to Annecy).
C) He gets the advantages of natural boost in bodies EPO due to physiological response to LHTL and at the same time gets an actual advantage to synthetic EPO in that his bodies lactic acid buffering ability gets and increase that is not accompanied with synthetic EPO increase due to banned substance?
D) As a result . . . he gets benefit of EPO due to strenuous, costly, and time consuming regimen (probably explains why he only focused on TDF and didn't do a lot of other races to allow him to maintain this focused regimen that is designed for EPO increase for a four week period, just long enough to encompass the TDF) and is better than those that dope because his bodies lactic acid threshold is higher.
E) As a result . . . he won because he sacrificed and trained harder and smarter.
F) To all the doubters . . . is this even in the realm of possibility???? If you look at the facts and the studies . . . this appears to be exactly what he is doing. I am not aware of anyone else during the time he won the 7 TDFs doing the same regimen. In fact he was often cricized because he "went off and trained and just showed up for the TDF."
G) Is it possible that he won due to this and not the use of PEDs????
The performance benefits of altitude training are insignificant in comparison to those that can be derived from EPO use and blood doping. In your first reference, the average improvement relative to performance in two of the studies conducted was below 2%, with one between 2-3%. EPO and blood doping are known to provide performance benefits in the tens of percent. Here is one source in relation to EPO - http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/11/effect-of-epo-on-performance-who.html.
When you take into the account the fact that Armstrong consistently beat known dopers, it would be illogical to conclude that it was realistically possible for him to have been clean. A performance improvement of approximately 2% is trivial compared to the possible improvement gains that can be derived from EPO and blood doping.
Good work, BYU.
But altitude training has been standard fare among high-level endurance athletes since I think at least the early 70s, at least with the advent of the Kenyan running phenom. Incidentally, they more recently have abused EPO with the help of their European coaches. I think the fiancee of the world 10,000m record holder (Ethiopian guy) died of a heart attack. She was a world class runner too. All very hush, hush, but clearly EPO use has this risk (clot thick/oxygen rich blood). It got so bad in the 90s with top-level amateur cyclists in Europe that some were sleeping with heart-rate monitors on to make sure their hearts didn't stop while sleeping with hugely thickened blood. Lots of unexplained heart attacks among healthy amateurs/semi pros who don't have the expensive medical supervision of team "doctors".
There's a whole debate about oxygen tents, and there was a big kerfuffle on Velonews recently about their allowing a company to add a natural supplement that is supposed to boost natural EPO levels.
My own experience: I was low on on vit. B's (indicated by a blood test) because I don't eat bread, because I'm allergic to it. But a lot of Vit. B supplements have definitely raised my red blood cell count, whatever, and there's definitely a diff. in climbing hills. I go anaerobic or just above threshold, but don't blow up any more. Just keep going. Was really puzzled, because I hadn't been training more (in fact 15 pounds heavier from lifting weights in winter). But then realized it was the Vit B's effect on red blood cells. Not a racer.
Many Tour contenders train at altitude. The whole Garmin team does in a very sophisticated way (Vaughters does not disclose how). With Armstrong, does it help? Of course. It may have more of an effect on him than others, because he runs at such a high percentage of his more limited VO2 max, which is significantly below key competitors'. Doping plays a very important role in the blood chemistry of lactic acid processing and clearance. Other drugs such as HGH etc. are used to repair muscle damage.
I think Lance is just killing two birds with one stone: getting out of Austin with his partner, SO, whatever, with a new child; being in a wealthy, celebrity area but with some more privacy; and altitude training. Makes sense. Smart move.
But altitude training can't explain his success, because all the other key guys do it too. No secrets there.
But altitude training has been standard fare among high-level endurance athletes since I think at least the early 70s, at least with the advent of the Kenyan running phenom. Incidentally, they more recently have abused EPO with the help of their European coaches. I think the fiancee of the world 10,000m record holder (Ethiopian guy) died of a heart attack. She was a world class runner too. All very hush, hush, but clearly EPO use has this risk (clot thick/oxygen rich blood). It got so bad in the 90s with top-level amateur cyclists in Europe that some were sleeping with heart-rate monitors on to make sure their hearts didn't stop while sleeping with hugely thickened blood. Lots of unexplained heart attacks among healthy amateurs/semi pros who don't have the expensive medical supervision of team "doctors".
There's a whole debate about oxygen tents, and there was a big kerfuffle on Velonews recently about their allowing a company to add a natural supplement that is supposed to boost natural EPO levels.
My own experience: I was low on on vit. B's (indicated by a blood test) because I don't eat bread, because I'm allergic to it. But a lot of Vit. B supplements have definitely raised my red blood cell count, whatever, and there's definitely a diff. in climbing hills. I go anaerobic or just above threshold, but don't blow up any more. Just keep going. Was really puzzled, because I hadn't been training more (in fact 15 pounds heavier from lifting weights in winter). But then realized it was the Vit B's effect on red blood cells. Not a racer.
Many Tour contenders train at altitude. The whole Garmin team does in a very sophisticated way (Vaughters does not disclose how). With Armstrong, does it help? Of course. It may have more of an effect on him than others, because he runs at such a high percentage of his more limited VO2 max, which is significantly below key competitors'. Doping plays a very important role in the blood chemistry of lactic acid processing and clearance. Other drugs such as HGH etc. are used to repair muscle damage.
I think Lance is just killing two birds with one stone: getting out of Austin with his partner, SO, whatever, with a new child; being in a wealthy, celebrity area but with some more privacy; and altitude training. Makes sense. Smart move.
But altitude training can't explain his success, because all the other key guys do it too. No secrets there.
byu123 said:
No, why do you not see that using training like that COMBINED with PED's as being the most likely scenario is beyond me? All of that training he did/does would still not equal the benefits to a rider that trained 95% as hard and doped. It wouldn't. Mr Armstrong did both with a focus that any champion would. I do believe he would have won clean if everyone else was also clean. However, everyone else wasn't and if you think people like Vino and Basso don't train as hard or specific as Mr Armstrong, you just are wrong.
This idea that Armstrong is the first rider to ever train hard is ludicrous. You have admitted to knowing little of anything about the sport past Mr Armstrong. I suggest looking a bit further into cycling's history.
byu123 said:
Not true. These guys all go to the absolute edge of their abilities at the risk of physical breakdown (a knife edge between peak performance and sickness all the time), and the differences are infinitesimal at the end. Hence, the doping temptation, where the returns are in the order of 5-15%, ie. exponentially high.
The finely honed peaking ability from autologous blood doping is legendary. Check Lasse Viren in 70s at two Olympics. He was one of the first and best at it. Very like Lance in his ability to peak, then not really win other stuff.
Dr. Maserati
BANNED
byu123 said:
Amm, no-one did, not even Armstrong.... before this year his pre Tour regime (as in the last 6 weeks before the Tour) was to do the Dauphine or the Tour de Swiss then do some checks on the stages for the Tour.
A Mr. Rasmussen went to Mexico* for altitude training....but you don't really want to go there....
There is a recent post by Joe Papp that confirms what has been written to you several times. The greatest benefit to PED's is the ability to train and race even harder without the breakdown of the body that would occur without them. There are many tests that are not positive, but defy all physiological knowledge. One clear example is the maintenance of a testosterone level throughout a 3 week tour. You see guys with levels in the 3rd week similar to the ones they have in the first, and there is no real answer. Maybe their T/E ratio never exceeds the legal limit, but that does not change the fact that it defies physiological knowledge of what happens to the body in extended periods of extreme physical exertion.
You keep digging for the answer that will make us wrong. At some point, put down the shovel and read what has been posted in counter argument about all of that with an open mind. Your focus is now on proving us all wrong. Take some time off from that and look into other evidence, not just the next thing you find to prove you are right. I have a feeling that once you drop the idea that we cannot possibly know what we are talking about and just go neutral on the subject, you like many will see the truth. It is staring you in the face, only you keep shoving it aside to find the next proof you are right.
I might also suggest some reading on this point. Mr Armstrong was diagnosed with testicular cancer. There were markers that should have been present in his urine that would have caused a positive BECAUSE of his cancer. The only way they weren't was if he was the only person with testicular cancer to not show them, or he was masking. The information is there if you want to find it.
Cheers.
You keep digging for the answer that will make us wrong. At some point, put down the shovel and read what has been posted in counter argument about all of that with an open mind. Your focus is now on proving us all wrong. Take some time off from that and look into other evidence, not just the next thing you find to prove you are right. I have a feeling that once you drop the idea that we cannot possibly know what we are talking about and just go neutral on the subject, you like many will see the truth. It is staring you in the face, only you keep shoving it aside to find the next proof you are right.
I might also suggest some reading on this point. Mr Armstrong was diagnosed with testicular cancer. There were markers that should have been present in his urine that would have caused a positive BECAUSE of his cancer. The only way they weren't was if he was the only person with testicular cancer to not show them, or he was masking. The information is there if you want to find it.
Cheers.
Thoughtforfood said:
So you can post lucidly in a normal tone, without condescension, ridicule, sarcasm or insults. Well done - and I do not mean that sarcastically.
I'm intrigued by your last paragraph and would be grateful for some specific reading matter about these markers.
Dr. Maserati
BANNED
joe_papp said:
Agreed...
BYU I understand you are new to cycling - another book I would recommend would be Matt Rendell's 'The Death of Marco Pantani' not only will it help you understand the doping environment within cycling it may also help you understand why most of the posters here are so passionate about trying to get doping out of cycling.
Amsterhammer said:
It is indeed a rare day, but thank you.
You may not like this, but the best source for that I know is "From Lance to Landis," though I am sure it is somewhere on the internet. I will look and see what I find.
Amsterhammer said:
I'm intrigued by that paragraph too. Also, I've not read alot here about how the cancer itself might have been caused by use of PEDs although perhaps that was covered in earlier threads. Given LA's young age at the onset of that particular cancer it does make one wonder.
I would like to believe that LA is clean but there's sooo much smoke surrounding him. I think it was ninetyfiveRPM who summed up my feelings pretty well in a post from yesterday
http://tiny.cc/1cQoS
Go to page 76. Unfortunately, the preview of the book does not include page 75, but you can start reading at the top of 76.
Go to page 76. Unfortunately, the preview of the book does not include page 75, but you can start reading at the top of 76.
byu123 said:
Yep, he sleeps in Aspen, gets up, flys to sea level, training ride, back into the jet and back to Aspen..EVERYDAY?
Nope. You have to do this for months, live at altitude. ONLY way to LHTL is to use an altitude tent.
Parrot23 said:
"Five time Tour de France winner Miguel Indurain is reported to have had a VO2 max of 88.0 at his peak [1], while cross-country skier Bjørn Dæhlie measured at an astounding 96 ml/kg/min.[5] To put this into perspective, thoroughbred horses have a VO2 max of around 180 ml/kg/min. Siberian dogs running in the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race sled race have VO2 values as high as 240 ml/kg/min.[6]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VO2_max#VO2_max_Levels
Does this mean that if I got my sister's Alaskan Husky to train for the Tour he would absolutely kick Contador's a$$ on Ventoux????? Just a "noob" that wants to know . . . .
Thoughtforfood said:
When I read this passage in the L2L book I interpreted it differently - that there was corruption in the UCI and the positive test was deliberately ignored. In fact there was great concern that Armstrong would sue them but for some reason he didn't!
byu123 said:
Absolutely! Have you ever gone mountain biking with a Husky? They rest on the climbs, jogging easily up the hill while you crank hard. They only get a slight workout on the downhills while trying to keep up with you running fast while you blast down. A Husky could jog up Ventoux faster than any pro cyclist and if the dog felt like running hard he would win by many minutes.
BikeCentric said:
I think you're on to something BYU - I really want to see this now. Contador vs. a Husky hill climb up Ventoux. They'd probably have to shave the dog so he could deal with the heat.
BikeCentric said:
Damn straight . . . . If Olympic gold medalist in 100m Jesse Owens can run a race against a horse, Contador can race an Iditarod sled dog up Ventoux.
TRENDING THREADS
-
World Championships 2024: Men's Road Race (September 29)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 2K
-
Coppa Bernocchi Oct 7/103rd Tre Valli Varesine, October 8- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 221
-
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 28K
-
Il Lombardia 2024, one day monument, October 12, the final showdown- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 49
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 10K
-
Women’s RR - World Championships 2024 (September 28)- Started by Samu Cuenca
- Replies: 327
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram