Reason for Lemond's decline

[Anonymous]

i have never heard indurain doped, and he beat lemond and bugno by 4 minutes in that '93 TT

bugno really of burst onto the scene in 1990 - i would not be surprised if he was one of that "italian renaissance" generation to use epo. indurain has always been considered squeaky clean, though.

don't forget how fat lemond got during winter

Before reading the following replies I thought I would askyou a question. I could hardly contain my squeak,where did you not read that?

 

[elapid]

You statements above aren't really correct:

1. no one has really been able to bring into question the reported changes in gross efficiency (which is what really matters from a performance perspective). The Aussies tried, by claiming that the ergometer that Coyle said he used never existed, but they just made themselves look foolish in the process (since it clearly did, e.g., I used it in my dissertation).

2. since Armstrong's body composition was never measured when he said he weighed 72-74 kg, we don't know what his percent body fat was at that time. That is irrelevant, however, since power:mass is calculated from total mass, i.e., you don't need to know percentage body fat to calculate it. The fact that his in-season mass was based on self-report rather than direct measurements clearly is a limitation, but since A) Coyle made that clear right up front and B) the focus of the paper was really on changes in efficiency, not weight loss (e.g., read the Discussion...there isn't a single paragraph devoted to changes in body mass/composition, whereas four consider the changes in efficiency and the possible mechanisms), I don't think you can really consider it a critical flaw. It only seems that way to people (like, e.g., Ashenden) who think that the paper has anything to do with whether Armstrong doped or not.

I have previously stated that I am not in a position to argue the merits or otherwise of efficiency. The reduced body fat is not irrelevant because Coyle concludes in both the abstract and the discussion that this was one of the reasons for Armstrong's improved power-to-weight ratio. If Coyle uses reduced body fat and efficiency to explain this improvement, then he must prove it in the paper. He didn't measure it and hence he cannot prove it. Thus it is relevant to the conclusion of the paper.

Coyle does not make it clear how he arrived at his power-to-weight ratios, and nor does he ever state why he used estimated racing weight for 1999 and not 1992 or 1993.

The focus of the paper is on the 18% improvement in power-to-weight ratio, not efficiency. Efficiency is one of the reasons for this improvement. The fact that this 18% improvement calculation is incorrect is a critical flaw because it is the conclusion of the paper. If there is no or minimal improvement, then it makes any reasons for why he improved mute as well.

 

[acoggan]

Which sentence is it that I keep quoting which is worded poorly?

This one (snagged from one of your previous posts):

"Therefore, over the 7-yr period, an improvement in muscular efficiency and reduced body fat contributed equally to a remarkable 18% improvement in his steady-state power per kilogram body weight when cycling at a given Vo(2) (e.g., 5 l/min)."

If you change that to:

"Therefore, over the 7-yr period, an improvement in muscular efficiency and reduced body mass contributed equally to a remarkable 18% improvement in his steady-state power per kilogram body weight when cycling at a given Vo(2) (e.g., 5 l/min)."

it is entirely consistent with the rest of the paper, i.e., no error was made (which isn't the same as saying that the conclusion is correct, only that it isn't obviously incorrect).

Coyle presents three preseason data sets, so their comparison is valid. What is not valid is Coyle using an in-season estimation for a preseason calculation and then comparing this to other preseason calculations.

That is clearly a weakness, but is it a fatal flaw? Personally, I don't think so (I'd be more concerned about other factors), but since I wasn't involved in the editorial process what I think is really moot.

 

[acoggan]

The reduced body fat is not irrelevant because Coyle concludes in both the abstract and the discussion that this was one of the reasons for Armstrong's improved power-to-weight ratio. If Coyle uses reduced body fat and efficiency to explain this improvement, then he must prove it in the paper. He didn't measure it and hence he cannot prove it. Thus it is relevant to the conclusion of the paper.

Now I would say that you are the one failing to demonstrate any common sense. Calculating power:mass clearly does not require any knowledge of someone's body composition, such that the latter really is irrelevant to the "take home" message of the paper (i.e., efficiency went up and body mass went down while VO2max didn't change). Furthermore, it is hard to fathom how someone could decrease their body mass from 78-79 kg at ~10% body fat to only 72-74 kg (based on self-report) without reducing their percentage body fat. IOW, the most that I think you can say is that Coyle was guilty of some sloppy writing (which the reviewers should have caught).

Coyle does not make it clear how he arrived at his power-to-weight ratios

Sure he does:

"Mechanical efficiency. Gross efficiency and delta efficiency
during the period from 1992 to 1999 are displayed in Fig. 1.
These progressive increases in efficiency amount to an 8–9%
improvement over the period. This improvement is also displayed
in the measure of mechanical power generated when
cycling at a given VO2 of 5.0 l/min, in that it increased from
374 to 403 W (i.e., 8%; Table 2). Given that success in the
Tour de France is typically determined when cycling uphill on
mountains, it is best to normalize power to body weight (i.e.,
W/kg). Given this individual’s reduction in body weight from
78.9 kg (in 1992) to ~72 kg during his victories in the Tour de
France and given his increased muscular efficiency, his powerto-
body weight ratio (i.e., power/kg) when cycling at 5.0 l/min
is calculated to have increased by a remarkable 18% from 1992
to 1999 (i.e., 4.74 vs. 5.60 W/kg when VO2 is 5.0 l/min)."

Now that may not make sense to you, but it is clear to me that he divided the power data shown in the last row of Table 1 by Armstrong's body mass, i.e., for 1992 he divided 374 W by 78.9 kg to arrive at 4.74 W/kg and for 1999 he divided 404 W by 72 kg to arrive at 5.60 W/kg (although I actually get 5.61 W/kg).

, and nor does he ever state why he used estimated racing weight for 1999 and not 1992 or 1993.

Isn't it obvious? He was attempting to estimate how much Armstrong's power:mass increased over the time due to the improvement in efficiency coupled with the cancer- and/or dieting-induced reduction in body mass.

, The focus of the paper is on the 18% improvement in power-to-weight ratio, not efficiency.

If that were true, then why is there only one figure in the paper, which illustrates changes in gross and delta efficiency over time? (As another world renowned scientist, I would think you would recognize that if you want to highlight a finding you put it in a figure, whereas if you want to hide it you put it in a table or, better still, bury it in the text.) As well, why are four paragraphs of the discussion devoted to the improvement in efficient and the possible mechanisms responsible, but not one that specifically addresses the change in body mass/composition?

, Efficiency is one of the reasons for this improvement. The fact that this 18% improvement calculation is incorrect

But how do you know that it is incorrect? Were you surreptiously weighing Armstrong during the summer of 1999? (While I am being facetious here that is the only way you would be able to make the statement you have above.)

, is a critical flaw because it is the conclusion of the paper. If there is no or minimal improvement, then it makes any reasons for why he improved mute as well.

I disagree. The paper would still be of interest even if Armstrong's body mass had remained constant over time.

 

[elapid]

This one (snagged from one of your previous posts):

"Therefore, over the 7-yr period, an improvement in muscular efficiency and reduced body fat contributed equally to a remarkable 18% improvement in his steady-state power per kilogram body weight when cycling at a given Vo(2) (e.g., 5 l/min)."

If you change that to:

"Therefore, over the 7-yr period, an improvement in muscular efficiency and reduced body mass contributed equally to a remarkable 18% improvement in his steady-state power per kilogram body weight when cycling at a given Vo(2) (e.g., 5 l/min)."

it is entirely consistent with the rest of the paper, i.e., no error was made (which isn't the same as saying that the conclusion is correct, only that it isn't obviously incorrect).



That is clearly a weakness, but is it a fatal flaw? Personally, I don't think so (I'd be more concerned about other factors), but since I wasn't involved in the editorial process what I think is really moot.

Ha, this one made me laugh. That poorly worded sentence was not written by me. This poorly worded sentence was written by Coyle - it is a direct quote of his conclusion from the abstract of the paper we are discussing. Not my words, but Coyle's. I am sure you have the paper - read the abstract. That is his conclusions word for word. So you can take it up with him about how poorly he writes.

How can you say "no error was made" when he did not measure reduced body fat (or mass) and he then goes on to conclude that the very thing he did not measure was one of the reasons for his improved power-to-weight ratio?

 

[elapid]

Now I would say that you are the one failing to demonstrate any common sense. Calculating power:mass clearly does not require any knowledge of someone's body composition, such that the latter really is irrelevant to the "take home" message of the paper (i.e., efficiency went up and body mass went down while VO2max didn't change). Furthermore, it is hard to fathom how someone could decrease their body mass from 78-79 kg at ~10% body fat to only 72-74 kg (based on self-report) without reducing their percentage body fat. IOW, the most that I think you can say is that Coyle was guilty of some sloppy writing (which the reviewers should have caught).

Riders's weights often increase in the off-season as their training load decreases and they then lose weight to get into racing condition for the racing season. His preseason weights for 1992, 1993 and 1999 are listed. But not his racing weight. Furthermore, his racing weights probably would have been around 74-75 kg as well for 1992 and 1993.

The power-to-weight ratios used by Coyle were preseason power-preseason weight for 1992 and 1993, and preseason power-estimated racing weight for 1999. Why compare paired samples from 1992 and 1993 to an unpaired sample in 1999? Why use a different (and unmeasured) weight for the 1999 calculation and not use the measured preseason weight like he did in 1992 and 1993? This skewers the results and, knowing that Coyle is no doubt an intelligent man, is manipulating the data and misrepresenting the results. If he had done these calculations appropriately, then the power-to-weight ratio improvements would have been only 6.9% and 1.6% compared to 1992 and 1993 preseasons.

Sure he does:

"Mechanical efficiency. Gross efficiency and delta efficiency
during the period from 1992 to 1999 are displayed in Fig. 1.
These progressive increases in efficiency amount to an 8–9%
improvement over the period. This improvement is also displayed
in the measure of mechanical power generated when
cycling at a given VO2 of 5.0 l/min, in that it increased from
374 to 403 W (i.e., 8%; Table 2). Given that success in the
Tour de France is typically determined when cycling uphill on
mountains, it is best to normalize power to body weight (i.e.,
W/kg). Given this individual’s reduction in body weight from
78.9 kg (in 1992) to ~72 kg during his victories in the Tour de
France and given his increased muscular efficiency, his powerto-
body weight ratio (i.e., power/kg) when cycling at 5.0 l/min
is calculated to have increased by a remarkable 18% from 1992
to 1999 (i.e., 4.74 vs. 5.60 W/kg when VO2 is 5.0 l/min)."

Now that may not make sense to you, but it is clear to me that he divided the power data shown in the last row of Table 1 by Armstrong's body mass, i.e., for 1992 he divided 374 W by 78.9 kg to arrive at 4.74 W/kg and for 1999 he divided 404 W by 72 kg to arrive at 5.60 W/kg (although I actually get 5.61 W/kg).

Where does it say in here why he used a racing weight in 1999 and not in 1992 or 1993 when all the power measurements are preseason?

Isn't it obvious? He was attempting to estimate how much Armstrong's power:mass increased over the time due to the improvement in efficiency coupled with the cancer- and/or dieting-induced reduction in body mass.

Isn't it obvious to you that the 1999 power-to-weight ratio calculation is a preseason power and an estimated racing weight? Don't you see anything wrong with this, especially when the 1992 and 1993 power-to-weight ratios were based on preseason power output and preseason body weight, not racing weight? It's like comparing apples (1992 and 1993) to oranges (1999):

- Apples = power and body weight measured at the same time (preseason 1992 and preseason 1993)
- Oranges = power measured in November (preseason) 1999 and body weight estimated from July 1999*

* Note that the body weight reductions in professional cyclists also results in loss of muscle mass (because of low body fat stores) and this will most likely result in decreased steady-state power. So the preseason 1999 steady-state power cannot be used with an estimated body weight from 4 months previously because they are unrelated.

When this preseason power was calculated, his body weight was 79.7 kg. This gives a power-to-weight ratio of 5.07, not 5.61. Using the appropriate power-to-weight ratio, this gives an overall improvement of 6.9% compared to 1992 and 1.6% compared to 1993. Very different to 18%.

If that were true, then why is there only one figure in the paper, which illustrates changes in gross and delta efficiency over time? (As another world renowned scientist, I would think you would recognize that if you want to highlight a finding you put it in a figure, whereas if you want to hide it you put it in a table or, better still, bury it in the text.) As well, why are four paragraphs of the discussion devoted to the improvement in efficient and the possible mechanisms responsible, but not one that specifically addresses the change in body mass/composition?

Then why word a conclusion like this (again, not my words but a direct quote for Coyle's abstract) if the improvement in the steady state power-to-weight ratio was not the focus of the paper?

"Therefore, over the 7-yr period, an improvement in muscular efficiency and reduced body fat contributed equally to a remarkable 18% improvement in his steady-state power per kilogram body weight when cycling at a given Vo(2) (e.g., 5 l/min)."

But how do you know that it is incorrect? Were you surreptiously weighing Armstrong during the summer of 1999? (While I am being facetious here that is the only way you would be able to make the statement you have above.)

How do I know the 18% calculation is incorrect? Because Coyle's calculation of Armstrong's 1999 power-to-weight ratio is incorrect (see above). As explained ad nauseum, this calculation is incorrect because the 1999 power-to-weight ratio is based on an estimated racing weight from four months previously (and when his racing power output was not known or reported) and not the preseason weight. If Coyle wanted to use Armstrong's racing weight to make this calculation, then he should have measured his steady-state power during the racing season and actually weighed Armstrong at the same time rather than use an estimate from the subject (which Armstrong later admitted was false). Weight loss, particularly when it is done quickly as cyclists often do to get into racing condition results in loss of muscle mass (because they do not have sufficient fat stores to lose this amount of weight in fat alone), can decrease power output. Power is not a constant in this equation, so it is inappropriate to use a power measurement from November and an estimated weight from July, especially when Coyle was comparing this to powers and weights measured concurrently in November 1992 and February 1993. Who is to say that Armstrong's steady-state power output would not have also decreased with this weight loss? Assuming his power-to-weight ratio in preseason 1999 remained constant, which is much more likely than his power output remaining constant, this means his steady-state power output at 72 kg would be 364W, not 404W.

Coyle's 1999 power-to-weight calculation makes as much sense as comparing Armstrong's steady state power as a 15-year-old and his weight during retirement as a 36-year-old to calculate a power-to-weight ratio and then show how much of an improvement Armstrong has made since he was 15 years old.

I disagree. The paper would still be of interest even if Armstrong's body mass had remained constant over time.

So if I write an interesting "paper" full of incorrect calculations, misinterpreted data and with conclusions that cannot be supported, you would publish it in the JAP just because it was a smashing good read? Good one!

 

[beroepsrenner]

So you're saying that your training focused on road racing, and as a result, you got better at road racing?

Basically yes. but the point I'm trying to make is that all the rocket scientists on this forum appear to be hell bent on proving through scientific data that Armstrongs outstanding TDF performances were due to some form of doping. In the earlier part of his career he was a one day specialist and heavier. You dont need data. You only have to look at the pics. By changing the focus of your training you can dramatically change your performance in your weaker areas up to a point. While I can only assume that he has used whatever PEDs are going around at the time, like everyone else, there are other factors involved in improved performance which have to be considered. Mental focus is one area which is difficult to measure but plays an enormous part.

 

[elapid]

So photos are more objective than scales in determining body weight? Beroepsrenner, your posts are usually rational and well argued, but this statement is quite ridiculous.

The majority of this thread is actually not discussing Armstrong per se and is definitely not trying to scientifically link Armstrong and doping. We are actually discussing the methods used by the author of a paper to make his conclusions, not whether this means Armstrong doped or not.

 

[blackcat]

So photos are more objective than scales in determining body weight? Beroepsrenner, your posts are usually rational and well argued, but this statement is quite ridiculous.

The majority of this thread is actually not discussing Armstrong per se and is definitely not trying to scientifically link Armstrong and doping. We are actually discussing the methods used by the author of a paper to make his conclusions, not whether this means Armstrong doped or not.

the Wiggins crowd have used photos to support their position.

problem is, the "Wiggins has lost weight" spin in the media, was a week before the Tour started, and attempted to lay the ground at justification of "expected performance".

 

[beroepsrenner]

So photos are more objective than scales in determining body weight? Beroepsrenner, your posts are usually rational and well argued, but this statement is quite ridiculous.

The majority of this thread is actually not discussing Armstrong per se and is definitely not trying to scientifically link Armstrong and doping. We are actually discussing the methods used by the author of a paper to make his conclusions, not whether this means Armstrong doped or not.

You are right. Not very well worded. ( too much red wine last night) I think this thread has gone off on a bit of a tangent. The point I was trying to make is that there can be many contributing factors to dramatic improvements in performance. Some of which can be difficut to measure scientifically. You have to keep in mind that many who read this forum are not scientific thinkers.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I'd say out of all the forums on here, The Clinic members do their best to adhere to science, even if not that well versed in it. They still do a good job of yielding to it with logic.

As to Wiggins, considering that before the Giro started there was talk of his weight loss, and there he finished over 2 hours and 20 minutes back...

 

[beroepsrenner]

The full benefits of dropping the weight may not be felt imediately. It takes a bit of racing to recondition yourself to a new method of applying your power. That doesnt mean there have been no "enhancements" applied.

 

[_frost]

The full benefits of dropping the weight may not be felt imediately. It takes a bit of racing to recondition yourself to a new method of applying your power. That doesnt mean there have been no "enhancements" applied.

If you have a bicycle, take a back bag full of stones, ride a climb. Take off the bag and ride the climb again. Then think about for a minute and explain this "new method of applying the power".

 

[beroepsrenner]

If you have a bicycle, take a back bag full of stones, ride a climb. Take off the bag and ride the climb again. Then think about for a minute and explain this "new method of applying the power".

Simply shedding weight in itself does not suddenly transform a nonclimber into a climber. The weight lost is mostly muscle mass as no elite cyclist is carrying excess body fat. In the case of Wiggins, he appears to me to be riding lower and further back than he did when he was struggling on the big climbs. This change in seat position requires a period of time to take full effect as well as a change in his training/racing program. I'm not prepared to speculate on his use or not of PEDs. I raced and trained with his father and know that PEDs ultimately destroyed his life and find it hard to believe that Bradley would follow suit. Having said that, blood doping is a whole new ball game and the attitude of todays cyclists to it is probably different as well.

 

[the delgados]

You are right. Not very well worded. ( too much red wine last night) I think this thread has gone off on a bit of a tangent. The point I was trying to make is that there can be many contributing factors to dramatic improvements in performance. Some of which can be difficut to measure scientifically. You have to keep in mind that many who read this forum are not scientific thinkers.

Not scientific thinkers?
How many glasses of wine did it take for you to come to that conclusion?

 

[beroepsrenner]

You are right. Not very well worded. ( too much red wine last night) I think this thread has gone off on a bit of a tangent. The point I was trying to make is that there can be many contributing factors to dramatic improvements in performance. Some of which can be difficut to measure scientifically. You have to keep in mind that many who read this forum are not scientific thinkers.

Not scientific thinkers?
How many glasses of wine did it take for you to come to that conclusion?

Give me a break! it was while watching the ITT stage for f....s sake. I had to find away to make it more interesting and i lost count. Maybe I should be tested. Anyway if you look at the stats columns you will see that some of these sports science debates are replied to by the same handful of boffins but viewed by thousands. From that I can only conclude that the majority of viewers are not qualified or suitably experienced to contribute other than the odd joker or two

 

[Bagster]

Does this mean that Greg Lemond is now a jedi?

Yep, a bagel eating Jedi who whines a lot.

 

[Bagster]

I'd say out of all the forums on here, The Clinic members do their best to adhere to science, even if not that well versed in it. They still do a good job of yielding to it with logic.

As to Wiggins, considering that before the Giro started there was talk of his weight loss, and there he finished over 2 hours and 20 minutes back...

What they actually do is have a particular personal view on a topic. Lets take doping in cycling for instance They then read the available literature that tends to support their world view which then allows them to post in an apparently authoritative manner from one perspective, (either for or against) without really being able to support their argument from a knowledge base of their own. (eg David Walsh said it, so it must be true. I think Lance is a drug cheat and what David says supports that viewpoint) or (I don't think Lance is a drug cheat therefore I will only listen to argument in support of that view and ignore everything to the contrary). The point is that unless you are well versed in the science you lack the knowledge to actually "yield to it with logic" because seemingly quite plausible "scientific" arguments can be totally false.

Then you have posters who merely put forward a shopping list of all the non detectable PED's and make the immediate unsubstantiated inference that because of the way a rider is performing and the fact that he has not tested positive he must be on the aforementioned PED's or a combination of them. This assertion may or may not be true, but it is hardly an objective scientific form of logic. This is the form of posting that Bigboat tends to specialise in, and I don't say that to be nasty, it's just a fact.

I hope that Escar doesn't find this post too offensive

 

[beroepsrenner]

Listen to the bagster. He makes good sense.( except for the personal attacks. Everyone has a right to their own opinion)
I am constantly astounded at the total obsession so many people on here have with grasping every straw of evidence they can to prove that this person or that person is doping. Its almost psychotic in itself!

 

[elapid]

I think Bagster has it the wrong way around - we don't go in with preformed ideas and then look for information to support those ideas. We read about the topic and then form an opinion. It's not CNN where we get fed information and digest it as the truth. The world would be a pretty sad place if we couldn't think for ourselves and form opinions based on our experiences and readings.

Beroepsrenner, I was interested in some of the things you had said in previous posts and actually started a thread a little while ago asking about whether professional cyclists such as yourself and/or management knew team mates were doping. As a non-professional cyclist, I wanted more information than what I could read. However, you did not contribute at all to that thread. So instead of complaining about people talking about doping within their own limited scope, maybe you could help and educate us as an ex-professional cyclist who has used PEDs.

 

[Bagster]

I think Bagster has it the wrong way around - we don't go in with preformed ideas and then look for information to support those ideas. We read about the topic and then form an opinion. It's not CNN where we get fed information and digest it as the truth. The world would be a pretty sad place if we couldn't think for ourselves and form opinions based on our experiences and readings.

Beroepsrenner, I was interested in some of the things you had said in previous posts and actually started a thread a little while ago asking about whether professional cyclists such as yourself and/or management knew team mates were doping. As a non-professional cyclist, I wanted more information than what I could read. However, you did not contribute at all to that thread. So instead of complaining about people talking about doping within their own limited scope, maybe you could help and educate us as an ex-professional cyclist who has used PEDs.

Elapid, it would be very rare that a person would approach a topic in a purely unbiased manner. Most people have a particular personal view on a subject and they will tend to in the main look for evidence to support that view. To what extent they do this will depend upon the strength of their initial thoughts on the matter. Take Lance for instance. People who enter this forum will generally have a view about him as both a person and or as a rider. If your initial view of him is negative (or vice versa) it will take a great deal to shift you from that view and you will tend to look to support that view from the available 'evidence' that supports it. I am not saying that people cannot form opinions but by and large we enter a discussion about a topic because our opinions on it are already preformed one way or another to varying degrees. Those opinions are not necessarily based on facts but can nonetheless be strongly held. It takes a great deal of convincing to get people to change to a contrary opinion. Far more than it does to reinforce beliefs already held and people will tend to look for evidence to support their perceptions around an issue.

 

[blackcat]

Listen to the bagster. He makes good sense.( except for the personal attacks. Everyone has a right to their own opinion)
I am constantly astounded at the total obsession so many people on here have with grasping every straw of evidence they can to prove that this person or that person is doping. Its almost psychotic in itself!

its is indeed beroepsrenner

however the defenders of StrongArm take it to a whole new level of psychosis

 

[blackcat]

Elapid, it would be very rare that a person would approach a topic in a purely unbiased manner. Most people have a particular personal view on a subject and they will tend to in the main look for evidence to support that view. To what extent they do this will depend upon the strength of their initial thoughts on the matter. Take Lance for instance. People who enter this forum will generally have a view about him as both a person and or as a rider. If your initial view of him is negative (or vice versa) it will take a great deal to shift you from that view and you will tend to look to support that view from the available 'evidence' that supports it. I am not saying that people cannot form opinions but by and large we enter a discussion about a topic because our opinions on it are already preformed one way or another to varying degrees. Those opinions are not necessarily based on facts but can nonetheless be strongly held. It takes a great deal of convincing to get people to change to a contrary opinion. Far more than it does to reinforce beliefs already held and people will tend to look for evidence to support their perceptions around an issue.

I think you need to look at behaviour and culture, and look at the difference between the epo era, and the amphetamine/androgen eta. Look at the changes and records, and understand the culture.

There is no wish to hang anyone on the evidence, but just to remove the misconceptions and delusions about the sport.

The problem with the anti-doping vanguard, is it gets carried away, and gets lost up in posting like BigBoat in the everyone dopes crowd. My biggest highlight over the last decade, was Casar winning that stage, because I was extrememly confident, the guy was on bread and water. I enjoyed that win immensley.

Most who wish to advance an anti-doping drug free agenda, love the sport as much, if not more, than anyone else, and are not in it just to defend their hero; they want the sport richer for all, than rich for one. I do not think you can necessarily criticise that. Problem is when the psychosis gets out of hand.

 

[elapid]

Elapid, it would be very rare that a person would approach a topic in a purely unbiased manner. Most people have a particular personal view on a subject and they will tend to in the main look for evidence to support that view. To what extent they do this will depend upon the strength of their initial thoughts on the matter. Take Lance for instance. People who enter this forum will generally have a view about him as both a person and or as a rider. If your initial view of him is negative (or vice versa) it will take a great deal to shift you from that view and you will tend to look to support that view from the available 'evidence' that supports it. I am not saying that people cannot form opinions but by and large we enter a discussion about a topic because our opinions on it are already preformed one way or another to varying degrees. Those opinions are not necessarily based on facts but can nonetheless be strongly held. It takes a great deal of convincing to get people to change to a contrary opinion. Far more than it does to reinforce beliefs already held and people will tend to look for evidence to support their perceptions around an issue.

I will disagree, but agree to disagree. Maybe I am just different, but I rarely develop an opinion and then look for evidence to support that opinion. I read and/or listen to the evidence and then form an opinion. Maybe it is because I have a research background in science and using the evidence to support a preformed result is a fundamental no-no. But I do agree with you that once an opinion has been formed that it is difficult to sway people away from that opinion.

My opinions of Lance have changed over time and definitely cannot be labelled as either love or hate. I admire his cycling talents, achievements, comeback performances in the Giro and TdF, motivation and determination, and his cancer awareness efforts. I do not like his public image as arrogant and controlling, or his manipulation of the media. It is my opinion that he has doped based on my interpretation of the evidence, but IMO this is not a negative considering the likely situation in the professional peloton. However, his treatment of the likes of Simeoni and Bassons is a negative.

My opinions of other rides are equally complex. For instance, two of my favourite riders are Voigt (but cannot understand his opposition to banning race radios) and Cancellara (but did not like his histrionics against Evans and his complaining about the motorbikes in the final iTT). Professional cyclists, like all people, are flawed to some extent and you have to take the good with the bad, but they are not either "good" or "bad".

 

[groverjones]

I will disagree, but agree to disagree. Maybe I am just different, but I rarely develop an opinion and then look for evidence to support that opinion. I read and/or listen to the evidence and then form an opinion. Maybe it is because I have a research background in science and using the evidence to support a preformed result is a fundamental no-no. But I do agree with you that once an opinion has been formed that it is difficult to sway people away from that opinion.

I'm exactly the same, trying to keep an open mind in all situations. I, too, have a research background, and am now involved with the IT industry, where it's all pretty much black and white.

Lance has been one of my heroes, but it's more than the bike for me - I too come from a poor health situation, and got healthy around the time that Lance started winning Le Tour. These days though, Lance has gone beyond that, and I don't like what he's done this year. The final straw for me was when the RadioShack announcement came out on Thursday. Could he not have waited until the end of the Tour?!? I'll go back and watch my old DVDs, but he is no longer my hero.
This forum has been interesting to me. I started watching cycling in '91, and my first hero was Indurain, he still is. It's interesting to read that he was another doper, but was too nice for anyone to shove the knife in.
Cheers,
Neil