Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

[Dear Wiggo]

The prime effect of EPO - to increase Hgb, is also an effect derived from steroid usage.

Lance looks pretty beefy in those older pics for an enduance athlete. I'd guess through steroid use for recovery purposes. With the induced increase in Hgb as a bonus.

 

[Scott SoCal]

As someone who was in Oslo that weekend, I can tell you that dumb luck did not win that race. It was a really tough race, in horrendous weather.
Dumb luck might win a wet, half hour crit. it doesn't win a six and a half hour world championships.

It might not be a palatable concept for some, but before EPO, the ability to manipulate the UCi, and turning into the biggest a55hole in sport, Armstrong was a bone fide star of the future.

Not dumb luck, but don't deny that any number of favorites were long gone by the finish.

Twenty-ninth of August, 1993: it was clear from the gun that many of the peloton did not fancy the day’s 257.6km World Road Race Championships course around Oslo. They had good reason: new tarmac, road paint and the unremitting, driving rain caused one of the most crash-afflicted Worlds in recent memory. When pros fall off riding uphill, something is amiss.

 

[mewmewmew13]

The prime effect of EPO - to increase Hgb, is also an effect derived from steroid usage.

Lance looks pretty beefy in those older pics for an enduance athlete. I'd guess through steroid use for recovery purposes. With the induced increase in Hgb as a bonus.

It's before his 'body changed from cancer'…
ask Liggett..

 

[pmcg76]

No.



So, therefore, what?





No. LA didn't have the snap of Boonen or Sagan and he damned sure couldn't win the way Cancellara does. Simply didn't have that kind of engine.

So, tactically, he was limited (as was Hincapie). Small group, race of attrition.... those races he would be a threat.

I doubt if he would have won much which would make his palmares similar to Hincapie. Always there, not quite getting it done.




I followed LA pretty closely from the time of him being a teenage tri-phenom. He was a very good classics rider. But there were/are a bunch of very good classics riders. Guys like Flecha, Chavanel, etc.

Now you are trying to compare apples and oranges, Boonen could win P-R, RVV, San Remo and sprints, Cancellara could win same classics as Boonen and TTs. Armstrong could win L-B-L, Fleche Wallone, Lombardy and any number of week long races. Sagan is probably a bigger talent than Armstrong but he was at least equal to the other two results wise before the EPO generation kicked in.

When Armstrong turned pro he was scoring far better results than the likes of Hincapie or Flecha etc, they were more on a par with the guys mentioned.

 

[Scott SoCal]

You are right on the fact that he was dead last at San Sebastian which came right after the Oympics but the same week he won a stage at the Tour of Galicia, was 2nd in another stage and two weeks later was 2nd in the Zurich World Cup race. He then won one of the Italian World Championship warm-up races which were highly competitive as the Italians were racing for Worlds selection. All that before his 21st Birthday.

His Worlds win would best be described as opportunistic, I don't think it was down to dumb luck. He was in contention, played his cards and the big name's hesitatied too long. Indurain was runner-up was he not.

I don't understand this desire to make Armstrong out like he was average. He was the best Neo-pro in 92/93 and his results more than stand up against the likes of Sagan, Boonen or Cancellara. Yes Sagan won a lot but he had the tools(i.e sprint) to do so, Armstrong was not a sprinter of the Sagan calibre. Boonen had a result in Paris-Roubaix but then that is a race that can throw up many one-off results, who remembers Rudi Rogiers??? People might want to check how long Cancellara was a pro before he started getting results in the classics, it sure wasn't immediate success.

Doped or not Armstrong was destined for big things from the start and that was a view shared by mostly everybody including his peers.

Ok, so what?

Lance had immediate success and then somewhat struggled (relatively speaking).

Look at Sagan. He can climb all but the high mountains and sprint with the very best on the planet. Lance could do neither.

 

[jens_attacks]

Ok, so what?

Lance had immediate success and then somewhat struggled (relatively speaking).

Look at Sagan. He can climb all but the high mountains and sprint with the very best on the planet. Lance could do neither.

i seriously don't think sagan is a very good example. sagan's time just like lance's, might come. and then, these comparison will make even less sense than now

lance was a top talent before epo. end of story. or not i guess

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Does it really matter what sort of rider he was before 1998? Or after?

I am guessing no.

Arguing about it seems somewhat...

 

[pmcg76]

Ok, so what?

Lance had immediate success and then somewhat struggled (relatively speaking).

Look at Sagan. He can climb all but the high mountains and sprint with the very best on the planet. Lance could do neither.

Lance could climb as well but not the high mountains, just like Sagan.

Yeah he was super in 93, then struggled somewhat in 94 which I would consider the year when EPO really took over. Look again at that L-B-L top ten in 94. I believe that Armstrong was not on EPO in 94 but he still finished 2nd among all the Italian teams.

He realised in 94 that he was getting his *** handed to him and then started using EPO in 95 before working with Ferrari in 96, 1st at Fleche Wallone, 2nd at Liege-Bastogne-Liege which I would consider equal to doing the same at Roubaix, RVV. As I said we never got to see Armstrong at his best in the classics before EPO and cancer derailed things.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Now you are trying to compare apples and oranges, Boonen could win P-R, RVV, San Remo and sprints, Cancellara could win same classics as Boonen and TTs. Armstrong could win L-B-L, Fleche Wallone, Lombardy and any number of week long races. Sagan is probably a bigger talent than Armstrong but he was at least equal to the other two results wise before the EPO generation kicked in.

When Armstrong turned pro he was scoring far better results than the likes of Hincapie or Flecha etc, they were more on a par with the guys mentioned.

Well, the topic is LA as a classics rider.

He never would have won MSR.
He probably would not have been competitive at Flanders.
He probably never would have ridden P-R.
He would have been competitive at LBL.
He would have been competitive at Lombardia.

So then Fleche Wallone, Amstel Gold, San Sebastian, possibly a windy version of Gent-Wevelgem... he would have been competitive in those races.

I don't think he ever would have been a prolific classics winner. Just as Hincapie, Flecha, Chava and hosts of other very good classics riders aren't or weren't.

 

[andy1234]

Not dumb luck, but don't deny that any number of favorites were long gone by the finish.

Twenty-ninth of August, 1993: it was clear from the gun that many of the peloton did not fancy the day’s 257.6km World Road Race Championships course around Oslo. They had good reason: new tarmac, road paint and the unremitting, driving rain caused one of the most crash-afflicted Worlds in recent memory. When pros fall off riding uphill, something is amiss.

I certainly don't, and have no motivation, to deny that many favourites were sidelined by the conditions.

The other riders didnt claim it was a lucky win though, and everyone knew they had been in a tough race.

 

[Scott SoCal]

i seriously don't think sagan is a very good example. sagan's time just like lance's, might come. and then, these comparison will make even less sense than now

lance was a top talent before epo. end of story. or not i guess

Not saying he wasn't. Just saying I don't believe he would have won races at the same rate as Sagan, Boonen or Cancellara.

He very likely would have won races at a rate more like Hincapie and Flecha.

 

[pmcg76]

Well, the topic is LA as a classics rider.

He never would have won MSR.
He probably would not have been competitive at Flanders.
He probably never would have ridden P-R.
He would have been competitive at LBL.
He would have been competitive at Lombardia.

So then Fleche Wallone, Amstel Gold, San Sebastian, possibly a windy version of Gent-Wevelgem... he would have been competitive in those races.

I don't think he ever would have been a prolific classics winner. Just as Hincapie, Flecha, Chava and hosts of other very good classics riders aren't or weren't.

This is ridiculous, aged 24, he had won Worlds, Fleche Wallone, San Sebastian, 2nd at L-B-L twice, 2nd Zurich, 2nd Fleche Wallone. Between them what Classics/Worlds have Hincapie, Flecha and Chava even won???
Armstrong arrived just as EPO was taking over and had his career cut at 25.

Yes, Milan-San Remo as it evolved in the EPO era he would never have won but beforehand it was possible for an Armstrong type rider to win.

Not Roubaix, maybe Flanders but then Cancellara or Boonen are limited to which classics they can win and they are the ones Armstrong could win.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

This is ridiculous, aged 24, he had won Worlds, Fleche Wallone, San Sebastian, 2nd at L-B-L twice, 2nd Zurich, 2nd Fleche Wallone. Between them what Classics/Worlds have Hincapie, Flecha and Chava even won???
Armstrong arrived just as EPO was taking over and had his career cut at 25.

Yes, Milan-San Remo as it evolved in the EPO era he would never have won but beforehand it was possible for an Armstrong type rider to win.

Not Roubaix, maybe Flanders but then Cancellara or Boonen are limited to which classics they can win and they are the ones Armstrong could win.

Ya, I would broadly agree with this.
Maybe a better example than Canc, Boonen, or Sagan is someone like Gilbert.
Strong enough to be able to do short climbs and with a decent sprint to outsprint non-sprinters.

 

[Scott SoCal]

This is ridiculous, aged 24, he had won Worlds, Fleche Wallone, San Sebastian, 2nd at L-B-L twice, 2nd Zurich, 2nd Fleche Wallone. Between them what Classics/Worlds have Hincapie, Flecha and Chava even won???
Armstrong arrived just as EPO was taking over and had his career cut at 25.

Yes, Milan-San Remo as it evolved in the EPO era he would never have won but beforehand it was possible for an Armstrong type rider to win.

Not Roubaix, maybe Flanders but then Cancellara or Boonen are limited to which classics they can win and they are the ones Armstrong could win.

That's 1 WC and 2 semi-classics.

Like I said, he was not going to be a prolific classics winner.

 

[86TDFWinner]

not everyone can be indurain or contador

LOL, two dopers(at least one anyway, and the other is highly suspected of it). Not someone I wish to aspire to be. I wouldn't want to be either......or Wonderboy.

 

[pmcg76]

That's 1 WC and 2 semi-classics.

Like I said, he was not going to be a prolific classics winner.

Aged 24 you could have said the same for Boonen, Cancellara and Sagan. Boonen had won P-R, RVV and Ghent-Wevelgem, Cancellara had zilch and Sagan to date has Ghent-Wevelgem but is only 24 this year so needs to win a classic and semi-classic to match Lance(oh and a Worlds).

 

[Scott SoCal]

Aged 24 you could have said the same for Boonen, Cancellara and Sagan. Boonen had won P-R, RVV and Ghent-Wevelgem, Cancellara had zilch and Sagan to date has Ghent-Wevelgem but is only 24 this year so needs to win a classic and semi-classic to match Lance(oh and a Worlds).

Ok.

Boonen and Sagan can sprint.

Cancellara can go from 50kms out.

Lance was a very good classics rider. That and $1.50 will get you a Starbucks.

 

[ralphbert]

hematocrit doesn't mean everything.actually it means jacks hiit. i have a hematocrit around 49-51 and my endurance is not so great(to say the least haha).

It is my understanding that if you have an engine "designed" to perform with a low hemocrit (39) then you boost your hemocrit to a high level (50) then you get an increase of threshold power approx 20%.

If you have a natural high hemo crit (48) then you can only boost 2 points to hit 50 an increase in power of 4%.

This is not exactly how the numbers stack (power does not follow hemocrit linearly) but for simplicity sakes describes what is possible with different natural levels. This is the primary argument why the playing field is not level with doping, it is not the best athlete who wins but the best responder to therapy or the one with the most headroom on there natural hemocrit.

Am I wrong?

 

[MarkvW]

It is my understanding that if you have an engine "designed" to perform with a low hemocrit (39) then you boost your hemocrit to a high level (50) then you get an increase of threshold power approx 20%.

If you have a natural high hemo crit (48) then you can only boost 2 points to hit 50 an increase in power of 4%.

This is not exactly how the numbers stack (power does not follow hemocrit linearly) but for simplicity sakes describes what is possible with different natural levels. This is the primary argument why the playing field is not level with doping, it is not the best athlete who wins but the best responder to therapy or the one with the most headroom on there natural hemocrit.

Am I wrong?

As I understand it, a person with low hematocrit has more 'overhead' available for making more red blood cells. Just having a low hematocrit, however, does not make you a good EPO responder. There are other factors in play, and we don't know just what they are (otherwise, pro teams would be testing kids in elementary school).

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Efficiency is the other factor - and my reading says high Hct typically means lower efficiency and vice versa.

Ed Coyle's study probably debunks the theory that Armstrong's efficiency was high, however.

 

[ralphbert]

Efficiency is the other factor - and my reading says high Hct typically means lower efficiency and vice versa.

Ed Coyle's study probably debunks the theory that Armstrong's efficiency was high, however.

So a person with a lower hemocrit who can perform well has good efficiency as "compensation" for having a low hemocrit. Then if you raise hemocrit to high level and p00f, 7 time tour winner. Makes sense.

 

[sittingbison]

It is my understanding that if you have an engine "designed" to perform with a low hemocrit (39) then you boost your hemocrit to a high level (50) then you get an increase of threshold power approx 20%.

If you have a natural high hemo crit (48) then you can only boost 2 points to hit 50 an increase in power of 4%.

This is not exactly how the numbers stack (power does not follow hemocrit linearly) but for simplicity sakes describes what is possible with different natural levels. This is the primary argument why the playing field is not level with doping, it is not the best athlete who wins but the best responder to therapy or the one with the most headroom on there natural hemocrit.

Am I wrong?

As I understand it, a person with low hematocrit has more 'overhead' available for making more red blood cells. Just having a low hematocrit, however, does not make you a good EPO responder. There are other factors in play, and we don't know just what they are (otherwise, pro teams would be testing kids in elementary school).

You are both correct.

 

[gooner]

Lance has his final chance.

Lance Armstrong was warned he had one last chance to tell “all of the truth” and salvage what is left of his reputation on Tuesday after the independent commission into cycling’s doping past revealed the terms of reference of its inquiry.

The commission’s chairman, **** Marty, and the International Cycling Union president, Brian Cookson, issued a direct appeal on Tuesday for Armstrong and others to come forward and expose any wrongdoing which occurred in cycling between 1998 and 2013.

That was after publishing the commission’s terms of reference, which include the power to offer reduced sanctions for any witness not currently serving a ban.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...mission-looks-to-rid-sport-of-dirty-past.html

 

[Dear Wiggo]

So a person with a lower hemocrit who can perform well has good efficiency as "compensation" for having a low hemocrit. Then if you raise hemocrit to high level and p00f, 7 time tour winner. Makes sense.

Coyle notes Armstrong's gross efficiency as 21.18% (21.1 years old, 70 VO2max).

Edit: I am not sure what GE is good. A quick search and a study revealed GE of 17.9% for cyclists with > 70 V02max, so 21% actually looks damn impressive. The issue being at what power (Watts) GE was measured being different between the study and Coyle's.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Lance has his final chance.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...mission-looks-to-rid-sport-of-dirty-past.html

Thankx for the link