hrotha said:No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's a combination of factors, and it's impossible to know to what extent each one of them contributed individually to the final result.
Before EPO, those factors were your genes, your training, your mentality, your diet and countless other minor factors, including your doping program. After EPO, all of that was still important, but the quality of your program and how well you responded to it became major factors, almost trumping everything else.
On the other hand, the whole point of this thread is that Ferrari's program *was* better than others, regardless of how individual riders responded to dope, so I'm not sure what we're arguing here.
I agree with your assessment, I think the big problem with EPO is that it distorted the sport.
As I said earlier I dont think its about the better programme, its about who responed best. Honestly I think that Ferrari was the best at co-ordinating training with the usage of EPO to focus on specific objectives. Why was he the best? I dont know, I am not a scientist but if he was regarded as the best, then there had to be something.
Before Lance, he had a range of clients and it cannot have been easy to manage a varied group of talents. If Lance had access to Ferrari exclusively, I can see how that would be more effective. The other big factor is that Lance and his team targeted one race which narrows the variables a lot.