Race Radio said:
You are welcome to pretend it is about weight but it is about muscle mass, something Jan had in abundance.
This was made in response to another poster, but let me repeat, I myself am OK with that. I just want to see evidence for it, e.g: 1) the best climbers were all densely-muscled types; 2) studies showing that densely-muscled individuals respond better to EPO or transfusions better than less densely-muscled types; 3) studies showing that adding muscle mass with PEDs raises the "natural" V02 or some other parameter resulting in greater power. And "densely-muscled" or "muscle mass" has to be defined in a reasonably objective way, so that any rider can be assessed. Not just, so-and-so says Pantani or Ullrich or LA had more of it than anyone else he ever saw.
FWIW, I agree with you that the dominance of non-classic climbers like LA and Ulle requires an explanation, and that the alternatives most discussed here, for LA at least--exclusive access to some drug like HemAssist; better program with Ferrari; protection from UCI--while in some cases maybe having some truth to them--all seem too weak. This muscle mass theory would not only provide a potentially better explanation for LA's dominance, but connect it with Ulle as well. Maybe Riis, too.
But beyond the absence of evidence for it (presented on this forum), it raises a host of questions. E.g., if it’s not about size of rider per se, but how densely muscled they were, then there should have been some light climbing types who were densely-muscled. You do mention Pantani. But if Pantani had the same blood boosting advantage as LA and Ulle from his muscle mass, he should have killed them on the climbs, because his naturally greater power/weight would have given him an additional advantage.
Now sure, you can wave your hands around and hypothesize that while MP was densely muscled, he wasn’t quite as much as LA and Ulle, so he didn’t get quite the EPO/blood advantage they got. Or maybe his natural HT was higher. But the point is, if size per se is irrelevant, there should have been some light climbing types who got the same blood boosting advantage as bigger guys like LA and Ulle, and so should have been able to out-climb them.
The result would modify the traditional order of climbers in the peloton, but not destroy it. A subset of the traditionally best climbers, those with the densest muscles, would be the new kings of the mountain. Behind them would be larger, densely muscled riders like LA and Ulle, as well as light, traditional climbers that were not so densely muscled. And behind them, larger riders who were not densely muscled.
So if anyone is engaging in filibustering, it's you. Filibustering prevents a deliberative body from proceeding on some issue. Nothing I'm posting prevents you and others from proceeding to evaluate this theory. You're all welcome to ignore me, without hindering in the slightest your discussion. You're the one who has come on here claiming to have had hours of discussion with doctors about this effect, but won't elaborate.