Donkeys to racehorces. The effect of PEDs on cycling performance

Page 8 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Krebs cycle said:
There is one other thing that I'm really intrigued to find out. Since some of you seem to know exactly how much of an effect Ferrari's handiwork did for LA, surely you must know exactly what effect the PEDs had on all the other riders too?

So I want to know which riders actually were real racehorses and TdF contenders between 1999-2005 but had poor responses to PEDs. I also want to know how it is that you know they had poor responses to their doping regimes and how it is that you know Ferrari the alchemist was soooo much better than any other cheating doctor or how he was able to get soooo much more out of LA than any of his other clients despite the 50% hct rule.

edit: exclusivity deal with Ferrari? What evidence of this is there?
Wasnt Mancebo the one where even his doctors claimed that he did not gain from doping nothing instead of placebo?
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
rhubroma said:
This is getting a bit tedious, here you have said the same things which you have always been saying about what I said in my propositions to the inquires laid down in this thread. Though L. A.'s curve was more exceptional because, unlike Cadel who risked winning his first Giro and Ulrich who won his first Tour, Lance was slow in each of his first Tours.

Go look back and read my analysis, in which I have always maintained that I think it was a combination of factors, with the added benefit of possible drugs and methods that were unknown in the peloton at the time. The latter giving him an unnatural edge, even within the doped peloton, that made him the greatest "champion" at the Tour. But it was a scam and the drugs, not the determination and will, became the decisive factor.

An interesting artical was published today in Sports Week of la Gazzetta dello Sport by noted Italian cycling journalist Pier Bergonzi called Lance Armstrong: Angelo o Demone. As Bergonzi notes there had been speculation years ago that Armstrong was on a special PEDs program: "When he surpriingly conquered his first Yellow Jersy in 1999 there were already skeptics, behind the scenes inuendos and accusors or all sorts. Without ufficially coming forward, some were sustaining that he would have had the advantage of using still other pharmaceuticals from his cancer treatments, while others hypothesized havinf recourse to genetic doping."

What were these possible drugs? What access to US treatments did Lance get? What advantage does Ferrari give him by working exclusively with Armstrong? These are questions I hope the USADA will answer for us.

Then, as Bergonzi points out, Lance was able to pass nearly 500 tests (Ferrari?) prevent Walsh's L.A. Confidential: The Secrets of Lance Armstrong from being published in England and, following a law suit, even get a public apology from the Sunday Times!

That's power and influence no lying, bully of a doper should have.
...Jan Ullrich was actually second in his first Tour....though it was quite clear to many that he was a superior rider to the winner Bjarne Riis, his team mate....his performance produced quite a dust storm of second guessing and would eventually lead to Riis' famous bike throw in the subsequent Tour...

...as for taking advantage of drugs used for his treatment...very good point..apparently one of those drugs that had been used during the treatment was continually used well after the treatment ceased...the speculation was that it was a very good masking agent for the rest of his cocktail...and it was evidence of this drug in Armstrong's system that the reporter who ended getting those early EPO tests was originally looking for...( the basis for this story is long and convoluted but it revolves around a chance meeting at a conference between a local oncologist and another oncologist who was connected to the Armstrong treatment protocol...and the fact the local guy was part of our local chaingang...)...yeah its kinda speculative until you mix in the story of the reporter then it gets a bit more gravitas...)...

...btw the local guy's line was something like..this masking agent is so good you can drive a truck thru the hole it makes in the drug tests..great line but remember this all just a story...but its a good story, though not as good as the one that has the original LA dying and being replaced by an evil lizard-like lifeform clone creature from the planet Zar-dot ( here to compete in a kinda sports version of Predator ), now that is a great story...though truth be told I've always been a real sucker for anything with even a hint of sci-fi in it...

Cheers

blutto
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
KingsMountain said:
I don't think we know any of that, other than Armstrong's results were drastically improved.
One potential factor is the affect of having cancer, a widely reported prognosis of worse than 50% chance of survival, brain surgery, and extreme (transient) weight loss. Surely that course of events will have a psychological impact on anyone, and it seems likely to me that it will have also some non-trivial effect on the hormonal and endrocrine systems.

I think as a community we tend to discount these effects, but it appears to me that the reasons for discounting are not objectively justified.

Why not believe that some of the improvement is due to more effective "preparation", some to loss of shoulder musculature with an increase in the legs/core, some to better off-season focus, and some to just "wanting it more"? That Armstrong reacted mentally and physiologically to the cancer in a way that enhanced his performance?

Frankly, a combination of small factors is much easier for me to believe than the notion that Ferrari chose a unproven cancer survivor (including an experimental chemotherapy regimen intended to reduce damage to lungs) as the rider who would receive Ferrrari's best program. Wouldn't have Ferrari expected a better chance of success (and the financial reward) with a different rider?
There are a few problems with this narrative, but the main one is that it's not factually correct. Here's the main issue with it: Lance Armstrong didn't have a "massive increase in performance" after cancer, he had it after he began to work with Ferrari.

Lots have things have been obfuscated after the fact, such as the "increased focus" and "weight loss". I'd urge anyone to take a hard look at his performance after he started working with Ferrari. 2nd Paris Nice, beating Rominger in the Tour DuPont TT, First in Fleche, second in Liege. He was 1 or 2 years away from winning the TDF, except he got sick. I honestly think by all indications we would have been top 5 in that year's Tour, or better, except that he was probably being affected by his illness.

There's a lot of nonsense on both sides of the discussion regarding Lance and his actual ability. That's why I'd rather talk about Riis:p It's much easier to make a case that he pretty much sucked (in relative terms) prior to doping. With Armstrong, it's a lot more complex than that.
 
131313,
With the slight caveat that I think every thing I wrote is factually correct, I agree with you. Armstrong was already showing great potential. That's why I mentioned "results" being drastically improved. The size of his pre-cancer contract with Cofidis is also a strong indicator that he was generally regarded as an upcoming GT podium finisher.
 
blutto said:
...Jan Ullrich was actually second in his first Tour....though it was quite clear to many that he was a superior rider to the winner Bjarne Riis, his team mate....his performance produced quite a dust storm of second guessing and would eventually lead to Riis' famous bike throw in the subsequent Tour...those were both quite famous events in Tour history...real funny that you weren't aware of them ( because its hard to see how you could just forget them )...either way it certainly puts many of the assumptions you have been throwing around here with such certainty into a very interesting light...

Cheers

blutto
Come on blutto it was a simple lapsus and has no relevance, also because I wrote that in literally 5 minutes with great haste in between work stuff today. But of course I knew that, that Ulrich finished second to Riis in his first Tour and did not actually win his first Tour even if superior to Riis, the winner. Just goes to show you, one mustn't act precipitously and do things in a rush. Thanks for reminding me though, but it has no bearing on the point, because it nonetheless demonstrates Ulrich's fabulous precocity.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
KingsMountain said:
131313,
With the slight caveat that I think every thing I wrote is factually correct, I agree with you. Armstrong was already showing great potential. That's why I mentioned "results" being drastically improved. The size of his pre-cancer contract with Cofidis is also a strong indicator that he was generally regarded as an upcoming GT podium finisher.
...another good point...as they say money talks, and that other stuff, no matter how deeply believed, walks...me, I still like the alien clone story...would make for a much better movie...

Cheers

blutto
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
rhubroma said:
Come on blutto it was a simple lapsus and has no relevance, also because I wrote that in literally 5 minutes with great haste in between work stuff today. But of course I knew that, that Ulrich finished second to Riis in his first Tour and did not actually win his first Tour even if superior to Riis, the winner. Just goes to show you, one mustn't act precipitously and do things in a rush. Thanks for reminding me though, but it has no bearing on the point, because it nonetheless demonstrates Ulrich's fabulous precocity.
...ok...ok...we'll let you off with a caution this time...( and in a related story, my post was also written a bit too quickly and I didn't, in retrospect, have time to firmly lodge my tongue in my cheek...oooops...sorry..it came off harsh and wasn't meant to be that way )...

Cheers

blutto
 
Jun 28, 2012
12
0
0
131313 said:
I'd urge anyone to take a hard look at his performance after he started working with Ferrari. 2nd Paris Nice, beating Rominger in the Tour DuPont TT, First in Fleche, second in Liege. He was 1 or 2 years away from winning the TDF, except he got sick.
That's my feeling as well. All this talk that "real" GT contenders do really well on their first try misses the point that the others were either pre-EPO or were already fully doped up during their first GT. Lance, it seems likely, wasn't fully doped up and healthy at a GT until 1998 when he did well in the Vuelta.

Did he get lucky because the others were under-doping by that time (as a result of Festina)? There seems to be some evidence that it may have happened that way. Did he have means to dope better than the others? I can believe that from 2000 or 2001 on, but it seems unlikely in 1999. These extra factors may have been the difference between winning a few tours to being a 7-time back-to-back monster. But he didn't do that without being a GT contender from the start.
 
Feb 16, 2011
38
0
0
Honest question

Since '90, which of the any GT winners are widely considered clean? Although a lifelong cyclist, I mostly lost interest in pro cycling after witnessing all the extraordinary performances to be drug aided. I really haven't kept up with it much lately and am curious to understand what the more knowledgeable believe about past Grand Tour winners.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
blutto said:
...turgid eh...well in good clear light most would see it as eloquent...

...and Bernays?...come on ...if anything, that is classic cheap Bruce Barton schtick...

Cheers

blutto
yeah, you might be right on bernays, I was referencing in my mind, the more popular efforts, the freedom torches, and hawking for big tobacco.
re: prose, I was thinking this line, which, is correct, just needs an edit for consumption "Given the image he produced of himself as the super clean cancer survivor that dominated the hardest bike race in the world longer than anyone before, the type of rider he was before he hooked up with Ferrari et al and the gargantuan profits he banked: Lance is the greatest sport fraud of all time"
 
blackcat said:
yeah, you might be right on bernays, I was referencing in my mind, the more popular efforts, the freedom torches, and hawking for big tobacco.
re: prose, I was thinking this line, which, is correct, just needs an edit for consumption "Given the image he produced of himself as the super clean cancer survivor that dominated the hardest bike race in the world longer than anyone before, the type of rider he was before he hooked up with Ferrari et al and the gargantuan profits he banked: Lance is the greatest sport fraud of all time"
Perfect. :)
 
131313 said:
There are a few problems with this narrative, but the main one is that it's not factually correct. Here's the main issue with it: Lance Armstrong didn't have a "massive increase in performance" after cancer, he had it after he began to work with Ferrari.

Lots have things have been obfuscated after the fact, such as the "increased focus" and "weight loss". I'd urge anyone to take a hard look at his performance after he started working with Ferrari. 2nd Paris Nice, beating Rominger in the Tour DuPont TT, First in Fleche, second in Liege. He was 1 or 2 years away from winning the TDF, except he got sick. I honestly think by all indications we would have been top 5 in that year's Tour, or better, except that he was probably being affected by his illness.

There's a lot of nonsense on both sides of the discussion regarding Lance and his actual ability. That's why I'd rather talk about Riis:p It's much easier to make a case that he pretty much sucked (in relative terms) prior to doping. With Armstrong, it's a lot more complex than that.
In effect he was four years away from winning his first Tour, following his initial hook-up with the much discussed Italian medic. However, here he is at the 96 Atlanta games. With a physique like that 131313, he wasn't 1 or 2 years from winning his first Tour, but light years. Way too much upper body mass. A real bull. Then he gets cancer and comes back completely transformed at the 98 Vuelta.





Now for me this leads to some questions about the effects of his cancer treatment as they were integrated with Ferrari's program. While, contrary to what the script says, LA did not lose massive amounts of weight in the process, as has been demonstrated in another post. At any rate he became way, way more efficient. Apparently he increased his work volume significantly, but how was this possible? I mean he was not some club rider. He was a pro, a World Champion, a Tour rider, an Olympic athlete, who would have already been on a top notch training-peds regiment with Ferrari prior to cancer.

Thus I suspect it was the new drugs he was exposed to with the cancer treatments and who knows what else with Ferrari when he came back. Even the good doctor, in the meantime, probably would have become more "efficient" as well.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
cortisone neck?

anyone wish to expound on this nick. Was it cos he looked like a tightend in lycra. And yes, dont be daft, I know he came in parhaps at 175 max, and minimum tight ends come in at 230lbs but usually they hold it at 6'1"
 
Jul 19, 2009
949
0
0

and


If Lance had bid upper-body, that were not the result of his triathllon period.
Maybe temporarily PED's effects?
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
poupou said:

and


If Lance had bid upper-body, that were not the result of his triathllon period.
Maybe temporarily PED's effects?
...you have got to be kidding...or do you have no clue about triathlons and the type of physiology that generally does well in that leisure activity...

...I could understand the need to stick to an agenda but for the sake of your own credibility try to keep it somewhat reasonable...

Cheers

blutto
 
Aug 4, 2009
177
0
0
blutto said:
...I could understand the need to stick to an agenda but for the sake of your own credibility try to keep it somewhat reasonable...Cheers blutto
great comment,
combining "agenda" and "credibility" in the same sentence
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
blackcat said:
cortisone neck?

anyone wish to expound on this nick. Was it cos he looked like a tightend in lycra. And yes, dont be daft, I know he came in parhaps at 175 max, and minimum tight ends come in at 230lbs but usually they hold it at 6'1"
...kinda looks like I did when I played football...and you don't need PED's to get there just a couple of years of a good weight lifting program....that being said, my race weight was around 170 and the loss of the 25lb from my football weight made for a very sweet dfference on the bike...but staying off the bike and going back to a more strictly weights program can pack the weight back on very quickly ( as I found out in the last 8 months or so...yeah it can be that quick...genetics and muscle memory and all...but once back on the bike the weight started coming off and things were good again... )...

...just for fun see if you can find any photos of Indurain during his Avenir win...and compare them to his Tour winning years...big difference in mass...and there were over the years several interviews with Miquel where he talks about his problem keeping weight off...a major step in upping your performance....also see Ullrich during his fat years...sometimes racehorses can become overweight donkeys and visa versa...

Cheers

blutto
 
blutto said:
...kinda looks like I did when I played football...and you don't need PED's to get there just a couple of years of a good weight lifting program....that being said, my race weight was around 170 and the loss of the 25lb from my football weight made for a very sweet dfference on the bike...but staying off the bike and going back to a more strictly weights program can pack the weight back on very quickly ( as I found out in the last 8 months or so...yeah it can be that quick...genetics and muscle memory and all...but once back on the bike the weight started coming off and things were good again... )...

...just for fun see if you can find any photos of Indurain during his Avenir win...and compare them to his Tour winning years...big difference in mass...and there were over the years several interviews with Miquel where he talks about his problem keeping weight off...a major step in upping your performance....also see Ullrich during his fat years...sometimes racehorses can become overweight donkeys and visa versa...

Cheers

blutto
How about this?

 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
rhubroma said:
How about this?

...ah, the Early Skinny GL, as opposed to the Later Tubby GL, one of whose mayor problems, according to Sean Kelly, was the inability to push away that last hamburger...and of course PED's had nothing to do with that...

...though now that I think of it that shot brings up an interesting comparison...Skinny GL won Avenir...Big Not Skinny Indurain won Avenir...then Skinny Indurain meets Later Tubby GL and kicks his ***...hmmmm...visa versa...versa visa...naw that would be blasphemy to even think...after all we are talking about a god here and not an evil lizard-like clone creature from Zar-dot...entirely different set of rules and regulations not to mention ethical and moral considerations as well as agendas and credibilties...very complex stuff....only the high priests of the clinic can deal with these kinda quantum level thingees...I mean it warps my head...

....and speaking of priests and stuff....would be interesting what the true believers of the only one true god would call their church when they finally get around to form it....The Church of The Latter Day Whiners?...and to shamelessly steal from Second City, I mean that in the good sense...

Cheers

blutto
 
blutto said:
...ah, the Early Skinny GL, as opposed to the Later Tubby GL, one of whose mayor problems, according to Sean Kelly, was the inability to push away that last hamburger...and of course PED's had nothing to do with that...

...though now that I think of it that shot brings up an interesting comparison...Skinny GL won Avenir...Big Not Skinny Indurain won Avenir...then Skinny Indurain meets Later Tubby GL and kicks his ***...hmmmm...visa versa...versa visa...naw that would be blasphemy to even think...after all we are talking about a god here and not an evil lizard-like clone creature from Zar-dot...entirely different set of rules and regulations not to mention ethical and moral considerations as well as agendas and credibilties...very complex stuff....only the high priests of the clinic can deal with these kinda quantum level thingees...I mean it warps my head...

....and speaking of priests and stuff....would be intersting what the true believers of the only one true god would call their church when they finally get around to form it....The Church of The Latter Day Whiners?...and to shamelessly steal from Second City, I mean that in the good sense...

Cheers

blutto
Allora - PM. Pontifex Maximus.
 
Feb 16, 2011
38
0
0
blackcat said:
cortisone neck?

anyone wish to expound on this nick. Was it cos he looked like a tightend in lycra. And yes, dont be daft, I know he came in parhaps at 175 max, and minimum tight ends come in at 230lbs but usually they hold it at 6'1"
Er...maybe a HS TE but the avg NFL Tight End is 6'4+, 260lbs+, and can run a 40 in sub 4.8 secs while crushing an unsuspecting linebacker with a block. intriguing comparison, though. Why do we (cycling enthusiasts) give at rats **** about PEDS while, globally, fans of pro football/soccer, tennis, hockey, basketball, boxing, baseball, American Football, and Mixed Martial Arts could care less. Those fans just want a good show. I sincerely don't know the answer but lost interest in cycling performances after understanding almost all were PED influenced.
 
Oct 30, 2011
2,642
0
0
nighttrain said:
Er...maybe a HS TE but the avg NFL Tight End is 6'4+, 260lbs+, and can run a 40 in sub 4.8 secs while crushing an unsuspecting linebacker with a block. intriguing comparison, though. Why do we (cycling enthusiasts) give at rats **** about PEDS while, globally, fans of pro football/soccer, tennis, hockey, basketball, boxing, baseball, American Football, and Mixed Martial Arts could care less. Those fans just want a good show. I sincerely don't know the answer but lost interest in cycling performances after understanding almost all were PED influenced.
Ignorance. I think many fans don't realise quite how bad PED problems are in their sports. Does it not strike you as a bit odd talking about 120kg men running 12 second (equivalent) 100m times, yet complaining about there being too many PEDs in cycling?
 
Feb 16, 2011
38
0
0
Caruut said:
Ignorance. I think many fans don't realise quite how bad PED problems are in their sports. Does it not strike you as a bit odd talking about 120kg men running 12 second (equivalent) 100m times, yet complaining about there being too many PEDs in cycling?
The irony has never escaped me. I simply don't understand why some sets of fans care (Track-n-Field, Cycling, Nordic Skiing..) while most do not. Personally, I've come to appreciate my father's instructions. He was a WW2 vet and told me at a young age: "son, athletes aren't your heroes, look to the local Preacher who is taking food to shut-ins, Firemen rescuing people,..those kind of folks".
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
red_flanders The Clinic 12

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS