- Mar 18, 2009
While not being unique, it is quite rare. Recently, the only rider to go from classics winner to GT contender/winner is DiLuca. And we all know that story. There are some riders who are good at both such as Valverde, the Schlecks and Evans to name a few (and in the past many of the all-time greats competed strongly throughout the season in both classics and GTs, Eddie Merckx being the most prominent). But this is different from Lance and DiLuca because they were one-day riders and then became GT contenders and were no longer one-day riders.LMaggitti said:Yes, I am. And there is no question that he made a pretty remarkable transition from a very good one day racer/time trialist to a tour winner. But it is quite a leap to simply assume (as you do) that such leap is entirely, or even mostly, attributible to doping. Pre-cancer, Armstrong was at an age where few riders are able to contend in a grand tour. So his failure to do so is not that remarkable. Many riders have made a somewhat similar transistion (if less abrupt). Obvious the (apparent) pervasiveness of doping makes many of those other transitions suspect as well. But you act as if the transition that Armstrong made is entirely unique. It isn't.
There is plenty of scientific evidence to support massive increases in performance with EPO, even as much as 54%! SeeLMaggitti said:Again, let me ask you, how does a mediocre rider - even a doper - win 7 tours? You would either have to posit (a) that his opponents weren't doping - absurd, as the evidence against most of them is even stronger than the evidence against Armstrong, or (b) that Armstrong has a dramatically better ability to benefit from doping than the rest of the peleton. Assuming that you are arguing the latter, what is your evidence? I've been following these threads for a while, and I've seen none. Nor would I consider it likely, given the science.
For other papers which investigate EPO and performance enhancement in cycling, see:
Look at the standard deviations for the performance parameters and you will see that, despite significant improvements in the EPO groups, there are large differences in the degree of these responses. It's the range of responses (or standard deviation) which explains why some athletes respond better to EPO than other athletes.