What changed with Armstrong Post-Cancer?

[gregod]

unwarranted accusations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet) - is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional or disciplinary response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

So far as I can see, none of the accusations of trolling in this thread fit the definition. I guess that is fitting because none of the doping accusations in this thread have been supported with any evidence, either. Speculation and circumstantial evidence are not the same a real evidence; a positive test or a confession.

It is laudatory that the fans in this forum care enough about pro cycling to passionately argue for clean sport. It is one way to keep the real experts and the cycling officials under pressure to work harder to ensure fair play. But strong opinions believing or not in widespread doping is not the same as evidence. Furthermore, second-hand speculation by a single expert is also not compelling evidence. If this were true, it would require that the rest of the experts in this area are in a massive conspiracy to cover-up doping. How likely is that? Also, there is the problem of confirmation bias. Layman speculation on the meaning scientific data after a few hours (or minutes) of looking around the internet for "facts" to support one's opinion while ignoring contrary evidence is not only intellectually dishonest, it effectively places one's own surfing of the internet over the expertise gained in the four to ten years of research required to get a Ph.D. How many people would allow their friend to treat them for cancer after reading a few articles on wikipedia?

So make all the accusations about the cycling that you want. It may make the authorities work harder to clean up cycling and/or its image. But accusing individual cyclists of doping (no matter how disagreeable they happen to be) without any real evidence (like a positive dope test or confession) with just speculation and hearsay is libelous.

 

[WonderLance]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet) - is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional or disciplinary response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

So far as I can see, none of the accusations of trolling in this thread fit the definition. I guess that is fitting because none of the doping accusations in this thread have been supported with any evidence, either. Speculation and circumstantial evidence are not the same a real evidence; a positive test or a confession.

It is laudatory that the fans in this forum care enough about pro cycling to passionately argue for clean sport. It is one way to keep the real experts and the cycling officials under pressure to work harder to ensure fair play. But strong opinions believing or not in widespread doping is not the same as evidence. Furthermore, second-hand speculation by a single expert is also not compelling evidence. If this were true, it would require that the rest of the experts in this area are in a massive conspiracy to cover-up doping. How likely is that? Also, there is the problem of confirmation bias. Layman speculation on the meaning scientific data after a few hours (or minutes) of looking around the internet for "facts" to support one's opinion while ignoring contrary evidence is not only intellectually dishonest, it effectively places one's own surfing of the internet over the expertise gained in the four to ten years of research required to get a Ph.D. How many people would allow their friend to treat them for cancer after reading a few articles on wikipedia?

So make all the accusations about the cycling that you want. It may make the authorities work harder to clean up cycling and/or its image. But calling individual cyclists (no matter how disagreeable they happen to be) without any real evidence (like a positive dope test or confession) with just speculation and hearsay is libelous.

Thankyou for these comments, they are considered and reasonable. However this is no the place for consideration and reason. For making these kind of comments around here you will get insulted and threatened. If that doesnt stop you they will just ignore you and then try and have your comments deleated.

When I first asked why they constantly seek to drag riders through the mud a forum user threatend to cut me with a blunt axe. Goodluck to you, hope you have more success than I had.

 

[gregod]

Thank you for these comments, they are considered and reasonable. However this is no the place for consideration and reason. For making these kind of comments around here you will get insulted and threatened. If that doesn't stop you they will just ignore you and then try and have your comments deleted.

When I first asked why they constantly seek to drag riders through the mud a forum user threatend to cut me with a blunt axe. Goodluck to you, hope you have more success than I had.

Thanks for your reply. It cracked me up. But you might be right.

cheers

 

[Mellow Velo]

Ah, the Borg have collected, overnight, I see.
No one piece of scientific, or even anecdotal evidence from the lot of him.

Yes, we have seen the same pattern in this decade, too.
Valverde and Cunego, both top classics men, unable to dominate the Grand Tours.
Contador, dominating the Grand Tours, but without a victory, or even the inclination to ride a classic.

As for Armstrong. The trolls conveniently forget that his record at the Tour was truly awful, prior to his cancer break. Losing over 6 minutes to Indurain in ITTs and consistently failing to reach Paris, was hardly the stuff of potential future champions.

Especially, when you think of riders such as John Lee Augustyn and Geraint Thomas, who went the distance in 2008 and 2007, aged just 21.

Of course, all this will be water off a fanboy's back.

 

[gregod]

Ah, the Borg have collected, overnight, I see.
No one piece of scientific, or even anecdotal evidence from the lot of him.:

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your post, but are you asking people for evidence that certain riders have not doped? If so, how does one prove that something does not exist? It cannot be proven that unicorns do not exist, but until presented with evidence of their existence, isn't it best to be skeptical?

If I have misread your post, please disregard the above.

cheers

 

[Anonymous]

None of the non-believers are even reading the pro-lance quotes

I've noticed that all the lance-bashers in this group merely ignore the posts by the smart people who believe in training and hard work equals results.

In my previous message, I talked about how guys like merckx, lemond, valverde, evans, schecks, wiggins have all been successful in one day races and grand tours. I also made reference to middle distance runners progressing to marathons. Olympic triathletes progressing to ironman..

Maybe i didn't make myself clear, as you all ignored the point. The point is, that its not that UNBELIEVABLE that a guy like lance went from a guy who was COMPETITIVE in one day races, to a guy who was COMPETITIVE in grand tours as there are so so so many examples of this.. hey, maybe they're ALL on drugs? (that was sarcastic, hopefully you understand my point)

The guys I mentioned have all been COMPETITIVE in both one-day races and grand tours.

You can also include in that group guys like indurain, sam sanchex and hinault..

Again, focused training on the event you aim for will determine your success, i pity those who discount success as doping, and it is a real sign of your weak mentality.

I'm sure you will all pick apart little bits of this post, but the general point remains, any racer can be competitive in one-day and 3 week races, dependign on how they train (and its no correlation to doping, as there are plenty of people with terrible results that have doped)

 

[blackcat]

it aint surprising.

But doping is the default. Look at the podiums of the GTs over the past two decades.

The exception is the clean rider. Use that as a starting point.

 

[scribe]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your post, but are you asking people for evidence that certain riders have not doped? If so, how does one prove that something does not exist? It cannot be proven that unicorns do not exist, but until presented with evidence of their existence, isn't it best to be skeptical?

If I have misread your post, please disregard the above.

cheers

In the clinic, the burden of proof is placed on innocence. This forum was largely created to contain this sort of thinking in one area. Otherwise, every thread in the professional cycling forum regarding the success of individuals will turn into this very debate.

 

[Anonymous]

Ah, the Borg have collected, overnight, I see.
No one piece of scientific, or even anecdotal evidence from the lot of him.

Yes, we have seen the same pattern in this decade, too.
Valverde and Cunego, both top classics men, unable to dominate the Grand Tours.
Contador, dominating the Grand Tours, but without a victory, or even the inclination to ride a classic.

As for Armstrong. The trolls conveniently forget that his record at the Tour was truly awful, prior to his cancer break. Losing over 6 minutes to Indurain in ITTs and consistently failing to reach Paris, was hardly the stuff of potential future champions.

Especially, when you think of riders such as John Lee Augustyn and Geraint Thomas, who went the distance in 2008 and 2007, aged just 21.

Of course, all this will be water off a fanboy's back.

Its funny, their hero comes in third and they all go away. It was nice and peaceful around here for awhile. Now, his blood profile shows evidence of blood doping and they all rise at once to defend him. It is understandable, but still annoying.

As to the troll issue, gregod, I suggest you actually read BPC's body of work. I think you will see, if you have an objective bone in your body (which I doubt), that his posts are filled with barbs not meant to further discussion, but merely to incite reaction. That my friend is a first class troll. Then again, from the tone of your post, I think that is what you are too.

 

[sars1981]

I've noticed that all the lance-bashers in this group merely ignore the posts by the smart people who believe in training and hard work equals results.

In my previous message, I talked about how guys like merckx, lemond, valverde, evans, schecks, wiggins have all been successful in one day races and grand tours. I also made reference to middle distance runners progressing to marathons. Olympic triathletes progressing to ironman..

Maybe i didn't make myself clear, as you all ignored the point. The point is, that its not that UNBELIEVABLE that a guy like lance went from a guy who was COMPETITIVE in one day races, to a guy who was COMPETITIVE in grand tours as there are so so so many examples of this.. hey, maybe they're ALL on drugs? (that was sarcastic, hopefully you understand my point)

The guys I mentioned have all been COMPETITIVE in both one-day races and grand tours.

You can also include in that group guys like indurain, sam sanchex and hinault..

Again, focused training on the event you aim for will determine your success, i pity those who discount success as doping, and it is a real sign of your weak mentality.

I'm sure you will all pick apart little bits of this post, but the general point remains, any racer can be competitive in one-day and 3 week races, dependign on how they train (and its no correlation to doping, as there are plenty of people with terrible results that have doped)

I would think lance was a doper even if he won three tours prior to cancer. There is enough circumstancial evidence.

 

[Anonymous]

In the clinic, the burden of proof is placed on innocence. This forum was largely created to contain this sort of thinking in one area. Otherwise, every thread in the professional cycling forum regarding the success of individuals will turn into this very debate.

No, the problem is that none of you fanboys seem to be able to refute people like Ashenden with anything but conspiracy theories and rants about how cancer makes people better athletes.

Now with the blood profile that strongly suggests blood doping, your only real defense is a bad case of the shits. See, when the going gets scientifically complicated, you chamois sniffers react with the howls of monkeys. Its all you got.

 

[elapid]

I've noticed that all the lance-bashers in this group merely ignore the posts by the smart people who believe in training and hard work equals results.

In my previous message, I talked about how guys like merckx, lemond, valverde, evans, schecks, wiggins have all been successful in one day races and grand tours. I also made reference to middle distance runners progressing to marathons. Olympic triathletes progressing to ironman..

Maybe i didn't make myself clear, as you all ignored the point. The point is, that its not that UNBELIEVABLE that a guy like lance went from a guy who was COMPETITIVE in one day races, to a guy who was COMPETITIVE in grand tours as there are so so so many examples of this.. hey, maybe they're ALL on drugs? (that was sarcastic, hopefully you understand my point)

The guys I mentioned have all been COMPETITIVE in both one-day races and grand tours.

You can also include in that group guys like indurain, sam sanchex and hinault..

Again, focused training on the event you aim for will determine your success, i pity those who discount success as doping, and it is a real sign of your weak mentality.

I'm sure you will all pick apart little bits of this post, but the general point remains, any racer can be competitive in one-day and 3 week races, dependign on how they train (and its no correlation to doping, as there are plenty of people with terrible results that have doped)

Mountain Goat - I addressed your previous post point-by-point. Go back and look. Your arguments were flawed and many were irrelevant.

Also notice that I addressed each of your points - something that the likes of BPC, WonderLance and now gregod are incapable or unwilling to do. That's why so many of us have BPC on our ignore list because it is a waste of time and energy to engage such trolls.

 

[Anonymous]

Mountain Goat - I addressed your previous post point-by-point. Go back and look. Your arguments were flawed and many were irrelevant.

Also notice that I addressed each of your points - something that the likes of BPC, WonderLance and now gregod are incapable or unwilling to do. That's why so many of us have BPC on our ignore list because it is a waste of time and energy to engage such trolls.

I'm pretty sure Mountain Goat is just another sock puppet anyway.

 

[elapid]

So far as I can see, none of the accusations of trolling in this thread fit the definition. I guess that is fitting because none of the doping accusations in this thread have been supported with any evidence, either. Speculation and circumstantial evidence are not the same a real evidence; a positive test or a confession.

There is plenty of evidence in other threads. Go to Search to inform and educate yourself. This thread is about what the difference was between pre- and post-cancer that made Armstrong transform from a classics to a GT rider. So don't try and hijack the thread with another one of these inane troll discussions.

In regards to a positive test: 1999 TdF EPO. Six times. Cortisone - magical TUE produced after the positive. Lance also should have tested positive to HCG in 1996 when diagnosed with testicular cancer, but never did. Why not? Masking agents, collusion? I don't know, but the failure to test positive to HCG is a major blow to all those that cling to the never tested positive argument.

In regards to confessions, do you want it from the horse's mouth? Yeah, right. What about confessions from those close to Lance: Emma O'Reilly, Betsy and Frankie Andreau, Floyd Landis (apparently), and a subpoened text conversation between Jonathan Vaughters and Frankie Andreau.

It is laudatory that the fans in this forum care enough about pro cycling to passionately argue for clean sport. It is one way to keep the real experts and the cycling officials under pressure to work harder to ensure fair play. But strong opinions believing or not in widespread doping is not the same as evidence. Furthermore, second-hand speculation by a single expert is also not compelling evidence. If this were true, it would require that the rest of the experts in this area are in a massive conspiracy to cover-up doping. How likely is that? Also, there is the problem of confirmation bias. Layman speculation on the meaning scientific data after a few hours (or minutes) of looking around the internet for "facts" to support one's opinion while ignoring contrary evidence is not only intellectually dishonest, it effectively places one's own surfing of the internet over the expertise gained in the four to ten years of research required to get a Ph.D. How many people would allow their friend to treat them for cancer after reading a few articles on wikipedia?

Firstly, many of us are not laymen. And no, searching the internet for evidence does not make you a PhD, but much of this information is published by PhDs or PhD candidates. Are you criticizing their work just because we can find it on the web?

Secondly, you provide the contrary evidence. In fact, I challenge BPC, WonderLance and you to provide evidence that hematocrit can increase during intense exercise and/or a Grand Tour. I also challenge you to provide evidence as to why Lance did not test positive to HCG when his levels were 109,000 ng/ml at the time of his diagnosis and the normal range in males is < 0.5 ng/ml. If you cannot provide verifiable evidence to support your claims, then you are just being dishonest (and note that you cannot be accused of being intellectual in your dishonesty either).

So make all the accusations about the cycling that you want. It may make the authorities work harder to clean up cycling and/or its image. But accusing individual cyclists of doping (no matter how disagreeable they happen to be) without any real evidence (like a positive dope test or confession) with just speculation and hearsay is libelous.

I am quite happy making these accusations. The objective and circumstantial evidence is overwhelming and much more than just speculation or hearsay. Lance lovers may consider such evidence as speculation and hearsay because they cannot get their nose out of his chamois for long enough to counter the overwhelming burden of proof. Lance can come and sue me if he likes. But he hasn't sued anyone since the SCA Promotions trial. Wonder why? Because that was when all this dirty laundry was aired and his true colours were shown for all to see.

 

[elapid]

I'm pretty sure Mountain Goat is just another sock puppet anyway.

Yep - I just wanted to see how Mountain Goat would respond. If he/she does not address my initial responding post in a relevant fashion (ie, not a typical troll-like diatribe of completely unrelated babble), then it is off to ignore land for them.

 

[Anonymous]

There is plenty of evidence in other threads. Go to Search to inform and educate yourself. This thread is about what the difference was between pre- and post-cancer that made Armstrong transform from a classics to a GT rider. So don't try and hijack the thread with another one of these inane troll discussions.

In regards to a positive test: 1999 TdF EPO. Six times. Cortisone - magical TUE produced after the positive. Lance also should have tested positive to HCG in 1996 when diagnosed with testicular cancer, but never did. Why not? Masking agents, collusion? I don't know, but the failure to test positive to HCG is a major blow to all those that cling to the never tested positive argument.

In regards to confessions, do you want it from the horse's mouth? Yeah, right. What about confessions from those close to Lance: Emma O'Reilly, Betsy and Frankie Andreau, Floyd Landis (apparently), and a subpoened text conversation between Jonathan Vaughters and Frankie Andreau.



Firstly, many of us are not laymen. And no, searching the internet for evidence does not make you a PhD, but much of this information is published by PhDs or PhD candidates. Are you criticizing their work just because we can find it on the web?

Secondly, you provide the contrary evidence. In fact, I challenge BPC, WonderLance and you to provide evidence that hematocrit can increase during intense exercise and/or a Grand Tour. I also challenge you to provide evidence as to why Lance did not test positive to HCG when his levels were 109,000 ng/ml at the time of his diagnosis and the normal range in males is < 0.5 ng/ml. If you cannot provide verifiable evidence to support your claims, then you are just being dishonest (and note that you cannot be accused of being intellectual in your dishonesty either).



I am quite happy making these accusations. The objective and circumstantial evidence is overwhelming and much more than just speculation or hearsay. Lance lovers may consider such evidence as speculation and hearsay because they cannot get their nose out of his chamois for long enough to counter the overwhelming burden of proof. Lance can come and sue me if he likes. But he hasn't sued anyone since the SCA Promotions trial. Wonder why? Because that was when all this dirty laundry was aired and his true colours were shown for all to see.

Great post! I am guessing that none of the aforementioned posters will provide any of the evidence you ask for. They will say stupid things like "you can't prove a negative" when in reality, they can't provide evidence that the amazing feats of physiology consistently performed by Mr Armstrong are actually possible based on tests already showing it isn't. They will point to Coyle and say that he is just the most gifted athlete ever. Its all they have.

 

[gregod]

As to the troll issue, gregod, I suggest you actually read BPC's body of work. I think you will see, if you have an objective bone in your body (which I doubt), that his posts are filled with barbs not meant to further discussion, but merely to incite reaction. That my friend is a first class troll. Then again, from the tone of your post, I think that is what you are too.

I admit I haven't read all of BPC's posts, I was just referring to what was posted in this thread.

As for my tone, I am not quite sure what you mean. I haven't attacked (or defended) anybody. But, in a way, I guess you are right. This thread is about changes in Lance post-cancer and I have not directly addressed that.

Did Lance dope in order to become what he is? As many people have pointed out there is a lot of circumstantial evidence. But in the absence of a doping positive or confession, he is technically not a doper in spite of what I may think.

 

[East Sycamore]

The whole underlying premise of the original post was that Lance doped before cancer and that Lance doped after cancer. The question is what is he doing differently after cancer that has allowed him to become such a great rider at tour time?

If you don't think Lance doped ever or if you think he didn't dope from 1999 on, this is probably the wrong thread to be posting on! The list of evidence against LA has been laid out in many other places.

 

[sars1981]

But in the absence of a doping positive or confession, he is technically not a doper in spite of what I may think.

"Technically not a doper"?????? lofl...just lofl..

All the individuals on this list >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling << were "technically not dopers" before they got caught/confessed to doping! I gues we can say that "technically not a doper" is a pretty non-compelling catagory....

 

[Anonymous]

I admit I haven't read all of BPC's posts, I was just referring to what was posted in this thread.

As for my tone, I am not quite sure what you mean. I haven't attacked (or defended) anybody. But, in a way, I guess you are right. This thread is about changes in Lance post-cancer and I have not directly addressed that.

Did Lance dope in order to become what he is? As many people have pointed out there is a lot of circumstantial evidence. But in the absence of a doping positive or confession, he is technically not a doper in spite of what I may think.

First let me say that posts like that make you approachable in discussion. Thanks, and if I misread your tone, then I apologize.

I understand the position you take, and IF you are a fan, it is understandable that you would hold that opinion. If you aren't, I still see the point you are making, I just believe that when there is significant smoke, there is fire. Like I have always said, from a psychological standpoint (which to me is most telling), when he chased down Simeoni, I knew for a fact he doped. A truly clean rider would never have done that because he would have had no reason to do so. I realize that judging psychological motivations from affar would appear to be the weakest evidence there is, but having seen the reactions of thousands of people who use dope, it is like reading a book when you see something like that. He acts so much like a drug addict that I have no doubt what so ever he doped.

When I take that and combine it with the 1999 samples, his reactions to others, and things like his blood profile, I say if it quacks like a duck...

 

[Digger]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet) - is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional or disciplinary response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

So far as I can see, none of the accusations of trolling in this thread fit the definition. I guess that is fitting because none of the doping accusations in this thread have been supported with any evidence, either. Speculation and circumstantial evidence are not the same a real evidence; a positive test or a confession.

It is laudatory that the fans in this forum care enough about pro cycling to passionately argue for clean sport. It is one way to keep the real experts and the cycling officials under pressure to work harder to ensure fair play. But strong opinions believing or not in widespread doping is not the same as evidence. Furthermore, second-hand speculation by a single expert is also not compelling evidence. If this were true, it would require that the rest of the experts in this area are in a massive conspiracy to cover-up doping. How likely is that? Also, there is the problem of confirmation bias. Layman speculation on the meaning scientific data after a few hours (or minutes) of looking around the internet for "facts" to support one's opinion while ignoring contrary evidence is not only intellectually dishonest, it effectively places one's own surfing of the internet over the expertise gained in the four to ten years of research required to get a Ph.D. How many people would allow their friend to treat them for cancer after reading a few articles on wikipedia?

So make all the accusations about the cycling that you want. It may make the authorities work harder to clean up cycling and/or its image. But accusing individual cyclists of doping (no matter how disagreeable they happen to be) without any real evidence (like a positive dope test or confession) with just speculation and hearsay is libelous.

http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

'Technically' the riders in Operation puerto are not dopers either. Nor is Marion Jones.

 

[sars1981]

O.J. Simpson is techically not a murderer.

 

[gregod]

There is plenty of evidence in other threads.

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence. Nothing that has earned him a sanction.

So don't try and hijack the thread with another one of these inane troll discussions.

I apologize. It was not my intention to hijack the thread.

In regards to confessions, do you want it from the horse's mouth? Yeah, right. What about confessions from those close to Lance...

These are not confessions, they are accusations. They may be the truth, but they have not meritted any sanctions.

Firstly, many of us are not laymen. And no, searching the internet for evidence does not make you a PhD, but much of this information is published by PhDs or PhD candidates. Are you criticizing their work just because we can find it on the web?

I am sure there is a great deal of expertise here. But I don't think anybody here is actually analyzing Lance's samples. Furthermore, I am not critizing anybody's work. But none of it has earned Lance a sanction.

you provide the contrary evidence.

I cannot. Perhaps this question has been addressed, but I haven't found the answer. But why in the face of all of the overwhelming circumstantial evidence has Lance not been kicked out of cycling? Especially, considering that Rasmussen was booted for lying about his whereabouts.

As for how Lance changed post-cancer: he could have doped. Maybe someday he will be caught or confess and put the speculation to rest. But until then, it is just speculation in my opinion.

On a side note to everybody: I am not quite sure what the rules are in this forum when it comes to disagreement. But it seems that for many people it means, "start your own thread. We want only people who love-lance/hate-lance/agree-with-me."

 

[elapid]

The whole underlying premise of the original post was that Lance doped before cancer and that Lance doped after cancer. The question is what is he doing differently after cancer that has allowed him to become such a great rider at tour time?

If you don't think Lance doped ever or if you think he didn't dope from 1999 on, this is probably the wrong thread to be posting on! The list of evidence against LA has been laid out in many other places.

Thanks for trying to get us back on track. This is only supposition, but IMO Lance was about power pre-cancer and oxygen-carrying capacity post-cancer. A few have commented on his classic "steroid" facial characteristics (acne and puffy), particularly after winning the World Championships, and how he got big very quickly. Some of his early one day wins may have been prior to the widespread use of EPO in the professional peloton (1992-1993), but it is hard to believe that EPO would not have been involved in some of his later pre-cancer wins (Clásica de San Sebastián (1995) and La Flèche Wallonne (1996)). However, this may have just been a matter of which races he was targeting rather than which drugs he was using, because we know that EPO made a big difference in the Classics as well (ie, Gewiss-Ballan in 1994 (including 1-2-3 in the La Flèche Wallonne) and Museeuw and the Mapei 1-2-3 in the 1996 Paris-Roubaix). May be it was seeing what EPO could do for the highly improbable Barne "Mr. 60%" Riis winning the 1996 TdF.

So again I go back to my list, with some modifications now that I know what you are specifically asking. IMO, the differences between pre- and post-cancer are:
- Dr. Ferrari (team doctor for the famously doping and highly successful Gewiss-Ballan team)
- More EPO and less steroids
- Dedication to the TdF
- Team dedicated to Lance winning the TdF (and also jacked under the guidance of Dr. Ferrari)

 

[gregod]

The whole underlying premise of the original post was that Lance doped before cancer and that Lance doped after cancer.The question is what is he doing differently after cancer that has allowed him to become such a great rider at tour time?

If you don't think Lance doped ever or if you think he didn't dope from 1999 on, this is probably the wrong thread to be posting on! The list of evidence against LA has been laid out in many other places.

Hypothetically, if LA went from a strong one-dayer to a grand tour winner via a different doping regime, my speculation would be that it wouldn't have been doping alone, but doping and different training. The early nineties were the end of the designer steroid era and that ushered in the designer EPO era. But his change in riding style (high cadence, and so on) cannot be discounted because it may have had a synergistic effect with blood-boosting.