Do The Old Favourites Get a Pass

[Nevermind]

How was it weak? First hand seems to be more relevant than seondhand internet links.

Easy to say you've heard something first hand. That doesn't mean that what person X told you is true. That person's source might even be those second hand internet sources. So in all honesty, such claim hold little weight without credible evidence.

 

[md2020]

The fact is that Armstrong tested positive for EPO six times.

The fact is that until Armstrong tested positive for EPO, he never came remotely close to spitting distance of a stone's throw of winning the TdF.

I'm no LA apologist but that's a pretty strange argument you're putting forward. First, just because he tested positive for EPO in 1999 (which wasn't discovered until 2005), it doesn't mean that he wasn't using EPO earlier. Did they test earlier year's samples?. The best you can say is that he was on EPO during that first win. He may have been on it earlier and still lost. We don't know for sure.

Another fact is that he didn't win the tour until after he was treated for cancer. Much like your statement, however, it doesn't really tell us much. Correlation doesn't mean causation as they say.

Also, it's not like he wasn't a successful racer before 1999. He won smaller stage races and some decent one day races before then, but it wasn't until 1999 when he focused his entire season on the tour. Plus, he was only 25 when he was diagnosed with cancer. Granted we've got some good young grand tour racers now, but how many under 25 riders have we really considered as viable grand tour racers in the past?

 

[rapistwit]

Easy to say you've heard something first hand. That doesn't mean that what person X told you is true. That person's source might even be those second hand internet sources. So in all honesty, such claim hold little weight without credible evidence.

I can assure you they were credible. If you don't want to believe me, fine. But that doesn't change what I have been told. I could probably do an internet search and find allegations but that's not how I arrived at my information.
It gets a little irriitating reading comments defending one rider over another.
Guess what? Every top Grand Tour contender for the past twenty + years has probably had help beyond their natural ability and training.
So sitting here claiming Lemond(or Armstrong) was clean, I believe, is just an excercise in wishful thinking.

 

[BigBoat]

From a physical standpoint Md2002 Lance would have never even finished a single Tour or been top 50 in the world championships/ one day classics without epo...

 

[Nevermind]

I can assure you they were credible. If you don't want to believe me, fine. But that doesn't change what I have been told. I could probably do an internet search and find allegations but that's not how I arrived at my information.
It gets a little irriitating reading comments defending one rider over another.
Guess what? Every top Grand Tour contender for the past twenty + years has probably had help beyond their natural ability and training.
So sitting here claiming Lemond(or Armstrong) was clean, I believe, is just an excercise in wishful thinking.

Then again, pretty easy claim. In all honesty, I don't disagree with what you are saying. I really don't believe past GT winners have been crystal clear, but I do believe the situation has gotten WAY worse since the early 90s. But I try not to make statements like «X person is Y» without have solid evidence and I believe most of the posters on this forum try to do the same.

 

[BigBoat]

It gets a little irriitating reading comments defending one rider over another.
Guess what? Every top Grand Tour contender for the past twenty + years has probably had help beyond their natural ability and training.
So sitting here claiming Lemond(or Armstrong) was clean, I believe, is just an excercise in wishful thinking.

rapist, its unrealistic but possible that Lemond could have been totally clean. Its a joke to suggest Lance was clean post 91.

Lemond could only hold about 390 watts for an hour... Lance peaked out at damn close to 500. Somebody with just 40 watts more would drop you in 5 minutes rapist... The diff between threshold and VO2 max is only about 10% rapist... V02 max power can only be held for a few minutes. FTP is 1-hour power.

Cheers!

 

[rapistwit]

rapist, its unrealistic but possible that Lemond could have been totally clean. Its a joke to suggest Lance was clean post 91.

Lemond could only hold about 390 watts for an hour... Lance peaked out at damn close to 500. Somebody with just 40 watts more would drop you in 5 minutes rapist... The diff between threshold and VO2 max is only about 10% rapist... V02 max power can only be held for a few minutes. FTP is 1-hour power.

Cheers!

When did I say Lance was clean?
And from what I have read Armstrong could hold 450 for 20 to 30 minutes and that he normally trains between 230-270.
Who holds the fastest average pace in a non prologue Tour TT, again?
Who magically became a contender in 1989 in final TT in the Giro after barely being able to compete prior to that?

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I have heard it first hand.

From whom? If you're going to make such an audacious claim, back it up.

some internet link

So, if I give you a link to the Michael Ashenden interview where he explains in minute detail why Lance doped in 1999, that's not valid to you, because it's "second hand internet link".

Thanks Big Boat, but you haven't set-up your new avatar.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Who holds the fastest average pace in a non prologue Tour TT, again?

Dave Zabriskie I believe.

Lemond did ride a very fast one. With a tailwind, slight downhill, relatively short, and with the Tour on the line.

 

[rapistwit]

From whom? If you're going to make such an audacious claim, back it up.



So, if I give you a link to the Michael Ashenden interview where he explains in minute detail why Lance doped in 1999, that's not valid to you, because it's "second hand internet link".

Thanks Big Boat, but you haven't set-up your new avatar.

You're either going to have to believe or not because I'm not going to cough up names.
And when did I say Armstrong didn't dope?
My opinion is that they all use performance enhancers or one sort or another.

 

[benpounder]

Dave Zabriskie I believe.

Lemond did ride a very fast one. With a tailwind, slight downhill, relatively short, and with the Tour on the line.

"Hummm Ben says, reluctantly entering the fray..."

One of the arguments against Lance is his performance on l'Alpe d'Huez, Alpe d'Huez, missing out on the top time by mere seconds to known doper Marco Pantani. And yet, Lemond held the fastest TT for years - doping years if you will - using aero-tech in it's infancy. This is not to say Lemond doped or Lance didnt, merely pointing out that the logic behind the charge against Lance's climbing times are equally valid against Lemond TT time.

And to others comments about the difficulty of l'Alpe, it really is not that difficult. I did it carrying a spectators musette (sandals, shorts, shirt, sunscrean, lunch, and 35mm camera with lenses), with serious intestinal distress one day in July 2003.

Yeah, not that hard at all...

Unless you are racing!

 

[rapistwit]

Dave Zabriskie I believe.

Lemond did ride a very fast one. With a tailwind, slight downhill, relatively short, and with the Tour on the line.

You're mistaken.

http://www.letour.com/2009/TDF/COURSE/docs/histo_09.pdf

Zabriske's record was in a prologue

On top of that how can a course winding through Paris be downhill with a tailwind when it wasn't in a straight line?

 

[franciep10]

Alright this is becoming another who doped thread and that's not what I wanted this to be I wanted it to be discussion about the fact that the older generations get a pass not if lance armstrong or greg Lemond doped, now big boat we get it lance wouldn't have come in the top 50 if he was clean because of the incredible pace because the rest of the peloton are doped up. my previous question has not been answered and I think it will prove a point, to repeat will the riders of this epo era be forgiven when a better drug than epo comes out.

 

[benpounder]

...that's not what I wanted this to be[.] I wanted it to be discussion about the fact that the older generations get a pass...

Put simply, the older generation gets a pass because they were not the snot-nosed, cocky b_stards that were beating us when we thought we might have been able to slide up a category.

 

[BikeCentric]

my previous question has not been answered and I think it will prove a point, to repeat will the riders of this epo era be forgiven when a better drug than epo comes out.

No. They will not be forgiven, not even close. And again, the main reason why is because of the huge effect that modern drugs have. A clean rider cannot compete with a rider on EPO alone, not to mention one on HGH, testosterone, bovine hemoglobin, Actovegin, and whatever.

They will not get a pass at all because they made it impossible for riders to compete clean against a fully doped up rider. The 90's have changed the sport dramatically, whether they've changed the sport forever of course remains to be seen.

 

[md2020]

From a physical standpoint Md2002 Lance would have never even finished a single Tour or been top 50 in the world championships/ one day classics without epo...

What make you say that?

Obviously you're saying that he's used EPO since at least '93 and before. At some point I'm guessing he did show some natural talent without EPO... don't you think?

 

[BigBoat]

What make you say that?

Obviously you're saying that he's used EPO since at least '93 and before. At some point I'm guessing he did show some natural talent without EPO... don't you think?

Lance has talent but not against everybody that is jacked... Almost Everybody was jacked on epo after the first epo tour of 1991...

Lance as I said is above average for a pro but he is not as god as people think... There are guys that get get higher than his highest ever undoped V02 max of 81-82. MAYBE he could get top 50-75 range clean if the field was not so doped but if everybody was clean he wouldnt come close to winning, he'd get it on a platter in the mountains MD2...

Thing is V02 max itself isnt number one but its sustainable power per kilo in the mountains that wins it... BUT V02 max is the ceiling for such FTP, you can train to a super high threshold percentage but the V02 ceiling will be hit unless you can raise it on a Dr. Ferrari drug program.

You have to look at Lances pre Dr. Ferrari performance while admittedly doped according to his hospital room conversation which DID happen despite what certain people contorte... Lance was already doped on epo, hgh, testosterone, anabolic steroids, corticoids and probably insulin too... But he couldnt do jack overall in teh tour could he? The highest he ever got pre-Ferrari was only a 36th and he was not fat at all... He DNFd as well. So without Ferrari and without doping he'd be a heck of a lot worse than 36th! In fact the most FTP/kilo he could gain with 12 pounds weight loss would be 8%. He improved by a heck of a lot more than 8% MD2002, on the Dr. Ferrari tune up.

Pre 1993 Lance showed talent but he was not to be elite pro mens WORLD CHAMPION the next year! He certainly responded well to EPO red cell jacking therapy. You see, a freak talent that wins worlds younger than Lemond, etc won worlds would have swept EVERYTHING IN SIGHT up till' that point.

 

[rapistwit]

Alright this is becoming another who doped thread and that's not what I wanted this to be I wanted it to be discussion about the fact that the older generations get a pass not if lance armstrong or greg Lemond doped, now big boat we get it lance wouldn't have come in the top 50 if he was clean because of the incredible pace because the rest of the peloton are doped up. my previous question has not been answered and I think it will prove a point, to repeat will the riders of this epo era be forgiven when a better drug than epo comes out.

Forgiven? I doubt anyone will remember or notice. I think sporting fans will become so cynical and doubtful of results that the money that entices the athletes to cheat may dry up because of lack of interest.
What is the first thingyou think of when a record is broken? Is it "wow that's incredible"? Or is it "I bet he's juiced"? Mine has gone from the forer to the later over the last 15 years.

 

[davidg]

It takes 5.1 watts per kilo up that thing for 49 minutes nonstop to crack 50 on that thing... Lance would never beat 50 minutes totally clean. Thats climb's a brute!

The talented cyclo tourists (there are MANY talented guys that can get under 50 minutes clean by the way >> an 82 Vo2 max Lance's highest ever undoped is not that high in relation to top 5-10% of guys) probably were strait up FRESH with no 200 km stage beforehand.

BigBoat - I think you have overestimated the W/Kg needed to get under 50 minutes. From what I am seeing it is closer to 4.3 which brings it close to plenty of riders. So it is a bit contradictory to say that LA would never have achieved under 50 minutes and then say that plenty of cycle tourists could if they had a pee first.

 

[md2020]

Pre 1993 Lance showed talent but he was not to be elite pro mens WORLD CHAMPION the next year! He certainly responded well to EPO red cell jacking therapy. You see, a freak talent that wins worlds younger than Lemond, etc won worlds would have swept EVERYTHING IN SIGHT up till' that point.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

In the rest of your post your conclusion seems to be that since 1991 almost no one (including Lance) can crack the top 50 in the TdF without EPO. Maybe it's true, but how can you prove it? Do you know all the riders' pre-EPO and post-EPO VO2 numbers or power numbers? Where are you getting the evidence to base your conclusions on?

Another question: Do you think that strategy plays a role in who finishes top-50 in the TdF or is the top-50 determined purely by physical ability?

 

[BikeCentric]

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

In the rest of your post your conclusion seems to be that since 1991 almost no one (including Lance) can crack the top 50 in the TdF without EPO. Maybe it's true, but how can you prove it? Do you know all the riders' pre-EPO and post-EPO VO2 numbers or power numbers? Where are you getting the evidence to base your conclusions on?

Another question: Do you think that strategy plays a role in who finishes top-50 in the TdF or is the top-50 determined purely by physical ability?

What he bases it on is really quite simple: EPO alone gives on average a 20% improvement in sustainable power output, i.e. a 20% improvement in functional threshold power. Blood doping with your own blood does the same. Ergo, if anyone of equal natural talent is doing either, a clean rider can't hang with them over a mountain climb. Once you learn the physiology of training for racing, then learn the impact of pharmaceticals on these training adaptations, all of this is really simple. Now that most of us high level amateurs train with power meters the veil is being lifted.

 

[BigBoat]

Maybe it's true, but how can you prove it?
Another question: Do you think that strategy plays a role in who finishes top-50 in the TdF or is the top-50 determined purely by physical ability?

MOST clean freaks would DNF the Tour md. I said it MIGHT be possible to hang if the pace is run off slightly slower, and they could maybe sneak inside top 75... One thing you have to consider is how many guys are completely jacked. If the 50% rule is enforced with startline blood values than it would be slower because only the smart riders would be hemodiluted on volume expanders. Ricco, etc were so damn dumb they were busted for recumbant epo! There is aleast an 8% difference in power between 50% and 57-59% completely jacked. That does not sound like much to you, but listen... Somebody with 9% more power than you cannot make their undoped V02 max power into their FTP. But somebody with 13% more power CAN!

md, Lemond is not sh*ting when he says he could not keep up with "the incredible pace of the pack" and "we were going 45 km/ hr up some climbs, 40 km/hr up some climbs". he couldnt keep up anymore he was finished! Early ... a DNF!


When talented riders jack red cells with either epo or blood transfusions, they all get higher performance values than what the most talented rider on earth could get undoped. Lots of guys can get 5.1 watts per kilo for an hour, but almost nobody can get 5.5. A 20% boost say from 4.9 to 5.9 is an example of a good responder.

And... HGH "growth", testosterone, or IGF-1 will add even more power and further ad insult to injury to anyone trying to keep up clean.

Most clean freaks would DNF but I wont leave it out that they could still hang. Bassons didnt use epo.

 

[BroDeal]

Listen Bro were not talking about armstrong here all I'm saying is that you and some other posters are saying that it was okay for the older riders to cheat because they only cheated a little, next so in 15 years when some other drug comes out that gives better results are the riders of the epo era going to get a pass too. as for lance he is the best rider of the epo era and if everybody cheated then it's ridiculous to say that he wasn't the best rider, even though he doped.

I do not buy that. It is not a level playing field. People respond differently to the same drugs; in the early and mid nineties teams would test the natural hematocrit of potential neo-pros to see how well they would respond to drugs. The financial resources between riders differ; compare the amount of money Armstrong was paying Dr. Ferrari and what Ullrich was paying Dr. Fuentes. Some riders like Armstrong even signed their doctors to exclusive contracts so they could not provide advice to their rivals; that alone says that some riders were using techniques or products they did not want others to know about.

Before the EPO era the vast majority of pros were taking drugs. The drugs did not have a huge effect. Some victories were undoubtedly illegitimate in that a rider won who would not have won if the sport was completely clean. Overall though I believe riders who had a decent number of wins ended their careers with results they would have had naturally. There may be a victory here or there that should not be on their palmares and a loss here and there should have been wins, but on balance their total results were roughly equivalent to what they would have achieved if everyone was clean.

I do not trust any results past about 1990, and I do not have faith that any champion in that era would have been the same champion in a clean sport. The results cannot be trusted. The sport is a farce. What we are watching is no longer real.

Willy Voet once said that the drugs before EPO allowed riders to reach their potential but EPO allowed riders to exceed their potential. The old addage that you cannot turn a donkey into a race horse no longer holds true. That does not mean that a Cat 4 could juice his way to winning the TdF. A middling pro who should have ended his career with a some good one day race victories and a few wins in short stage races that required power climbing could though.

People sometimes say that the riders would like the sport clean so they would not be forced to dope. I do not believe that either because there must be pros who know that in a clean sport they would not be the same rider relative to the rest, and they would not have acheived anywhere near the same sporting and financial success.

 

[elapid]

What he bases it on is really quite simple: EPO alone gives on average a 20% improvement in sustainable power output, i.e. a 20% improvement in functional threshold power. Blood doping with your own blood does the same.

This was also my point with the Alpe d'Huez best times. While I appreciate the argument that there are different factors affecting each race up Alpe d'Huez, I do not agree that it is like comparing apples to oranges. The top 10 riders are all linked to doping and 1997+. No coincidence that this time was ripe for EPO and autologous blood doping. These times are approximately 25% faster than Hinault and Lemond's time, the same approximate percentage performance boost you get with either EPO or autologous blood transfusions. Even if you argue that Lance's time when Mayo won the Alpe d'Huez stage was 3 minutes slower, this performance is still 14% faster than Hinault and Lemond. Not withstanding better equipment and more specific training techniques, these percentage improvements are equivalent to the benefits provided by EPO and blood transfusions.

 

[elapid]

I do not buy that. It is not a level playing field. People respond differently to the same drugs; in the early and mid nineties teams would test the natural hematocrit of potential neo-pros to see how well they would respond to drugs.

Interestingly, this was also the argument against the 50% hematocrit cutoff. This cutoff allowed riders with lower normal hematocrits to dope to greater effect than riders that had a naturally higher hematocrit. Hopefully, if the UCI ever get their act together, the biological passport will go someway to addressing problems such as this.