Who Wins With An Even Playing Field?

[Neworld]

Tyler Hamilton says Lance was one of the best athletes he's ever known and maybe could have won a Tour with nobody doping.

Tyler was probably trying to appear reasonable to the American public. “Hey I doped too, I worked hard so did Lance, he’s a real competitor”. No one doubts that. But no one doubts that every other pro cyclist worked hard, suffered, was highly competitive. The point is that most other top 30 cyclist’s had superior genetics …and being really mad at the world and wanting to crush all other competitors can’t make up for an average VO2Max etc…It also won’t get you team leader status on a GT team, ie: Lance would have never been in a position to be anything other than a Sean Yates or Dany Pate type. So, IMO LA may have been a top 20 one day racer. VIVA reality, not hate there pal.

All of the facts Tyler presented about LA doping, lying, intimidating…can be corroborated by multiple other sworn testimonies (coming to a newspaper near you). As for the opinions of Tyler, KL, RudyP, and Bolts about Lance and Jan, I ask the following questions:

1. what are the opinions of those that rode with both LA and Jan? (KL, PSavoldelli, A. Kloden)
2. when did Postal/Disco start team doping and Autologous bld doping?
3. who doped on each team, just LA and Jan, just the climbers on both teams or one team, what Postal always ahead of the curve ? Or as Rudy P said, ‘eventually we knew what had to be done “ implying they were late to maximize doping.
4. was all the positive propaganda about LA and the inversely negative propaganda about Jan always true? Clearly, Jan was not ALWAYS out of shape, fat and late to train. We know what LA was fat, late to train and rarely raced before May. Some would say that Jan (and other top 5 riders at that time) were an ultimate competitors, persistently racing against unbelievable odds where Postal had the best climbers and TTT riders, best doping, better doctors, race fixing, UCI support and journalistic drones.

Who should I believe here... it is really difficult to decide. Now if Tyler had said the opposite - that Lance had no natural ability and would have been good for nothing without the lube, you guys would be quoting it as gospel on here because Tyler was on the inside and knows his sh!t. Don't say you wouldn't.

Its all personal mate, especially the part about losing all 7 tour titles and wins back to 1998, OUCH. I only believe the facts that Tyler states when echoed by the other 20-30 similar stories and sworn testimony. LA has guts and tyrannical determination, but is he a genetically gifted athlete to make it to the top 20 of a grand tour, nope. That's why he doped exponentially more than anyone else. He had to.

 

[Altitude]

Its all personal mate, especially the part about losing all 7 tour titles and wins back to 1998, OUCH. I only believe the facts that Tyler states when echoed by the other 20-30 similar stories and sworn testimony. LA has guts and tyrannical determination, but is he a genetically gifted athlete to make it to the top 20 of a grand tour, nope. That's why he doped exponentially more than anyone else. He had to.

Mhmm, sure.

 

[Zweistein]

There are different tiers of doping. Armstrong won his Tours on the back of a comprehensive Ferrari program. But this does not eliminate his latent talent.

I suppose if someone cheated with a dictionary at a spelling bee, you would proclaim their "latent talent" just as readily?

Armstrong's only talent has been at cheating better than everyone else. He has been doping ever since he was on the junior team under Carmichael. That is twenty or so years. Seriously, think about that.

On ergometer test, he wasn't even the best rider on his own team. Van Velde performed better than Lance ever did but the result was hidden from Lance to not upset him and Velde so that he was stay as a domestique.

 

[Neworld]

I suppose if someone cheated with a dictionary at a spelling bee, you would proclaim their "latent talent" just as readily?

Armstrong's only talent has been at cheating better than everyone else. He has been doping ever since he was on the junior team under Carmichael. That is twenty or so years. Seriously, think about that.

On ergometer test, he wasn't even the best rider on his own team. Van Velde performed better than Lance ever did but the result was hidden from Lance to not upset him and Velde so that he was stay as a domestique.

My question about level playing fields and Lancey is ...what advantage did he NOT have? When he was maximally doped, there was never a level doping field, and he has probably never doped after the age of 20-ish. He doesn't know what a level playing field and neither does anyone... except for Ferrari and himself: That's what made LA thirst for every an all doping available. The Hog v2.0

 

[stainlessguy1]

Tyler was probably trying to appear reasonable to the American public. “Hey I doped too, I worked hard so did Lance, he’s a real competitor”. No one doubts that. But no one doubts that every other pro cyclist worked hard, suffered, was highly competitive. The point is that most other top 30 cyclist’s had superior genetics …and being really mad at the world and wanting to crush all other competitors can’t make up for an average VO2Max etc…It also won’t get you team leader status on a GT team, ie: Lance would have never been in a position to be anything other than a Sean Yates or Dany Pate type. So, IMO LA may have been a top 20 one day racer. VIVA reality, not hate there pal.

All of the facts Tyler presented about LA doping, lying, intimidating…can be corroborated by multiple other sworn testimonies (coming to a newspaper near you). As for the opinions of Tyler, KL, RudyP, and Bolts about Lance and Jan, I ask the following questions:

1. what are the opinions of those that rode with both LA and Jan? (KL, PSavoldelli, A. Kloden)
2. when did Postal/Disco start team doping and Autologous bld doping?
3. who doped on each team, just LA and Jan, just the climbers on both teams or one team, what Postal always ahead of the curve ? Or as Rudy P said, ‘eventually we knew what had to be done “ implying they were late to maximize doping.
4. was all the positive propaganda about LA and the inversely negative propaganda about Jan always true? Clearly, Jan was not ALWAYS out of shape, fat and late to train. We know what LA was fat, late to train and rarely raced before May. Some would say that Jan (and other top 5 riders at that time) were an ultimate competitors, persistently racing against unbelievable odds where Postal had the best climbers and TTT riders, best doping, better doctors, race fixing, UCI support and journalistic drones.



Its all personal mate, especially the part about losing all 7 tour titles and wins back to 1998, OUCH. I only believe the facts that Tyler states when echoed by the other 20-30 similar stories and sworn testimony. LA has guts and tyrannical determination, but is he a genetically gifted athlete to make it to the top 20 of a grand tour, nope. That's why he doped exponentially more than anyone else. He had to.

Neworld .....very good points .

I would just like to comment on one of them , just near the bottom : ( Thats why he doped exponentially more than anyone else . He had to .)

It reminds me of observations regarding alcoholics . An alcoholic needs a certain amount of drink just to start the day or to resume the day . Normally when there is enough booze around to fill the void they function quite well .
These people also seem to be able to tolerate huge amounts of it and function quite well that way . There are also people that are not alcoholics that still can consume huge amounts of drink and basicly drink a normal tough guy right under the table . A lot of them are even women .

My point is this . For years everyone has been spilling data of V02 max and all the other fine details of the athletes on these forums .
If we use the example from alcoholics , then there is also a corolation between the bodies ability to build up immunities to break down the affects of alcohol and coffee fast .
So , given what we know. It is feasible that lance was not the greatest athlete , but he had one ability that was superior . The bodies ability to be able to handle and break down the drugs better than any other competitor .
With systematic doping , like coffee like alcohol the body changes and can process it better , with a plumbing that is superior to handle stuff that shouldnt be there , he survived .
I think that is the only thing he had that is a plus over other stronger talented riders .
That would also account for the mood and the driven aspect of why he couldnt stop, he was driven and had to train like mad , because he basicly altered a lot of things mentally , just like an alcoholic becomes someone else mentally .
If i look at some of the tapes of his attitude towards spectators and media and just interaction with people , it is quite clear . The man has an altered ego or altered psychological status.
Drugs can do this. A person might be able to build up immunities , but there are tell tale signs that always change the demeanor of a person. They take their toll and its visible on the face .

So i have to agree with your post. I base it on observation and the similie of other drug users and their plight even though they are not athletes, the signs are all the same.

 

[function]

. a very interesting little factoid. thanks. though not an active runner anymore and it was never my 1st sport, i can appreciate the 4 vs 5 minute/mile and the fact the remark was made during a marathon (i once broke the 3h magic barrier and ran a bunch of milers in the low 5 minute ball park during training)

more interesting factoids for those not following the running scene. sure, the body type is very important in running, but not being able to do what literally hundreds of kids do every year, is no medal to any endurance athlete worth of a special tag - the world class talent.

Armchair analysis here;

His first marathon after retiring certainly was interesting since it was 2:59:36 (the winner did 2:09:57).
That's a really slow time considering his vo2max (even for an un-doped vo2max for a hypothetical athlete with a vo2max of 75ml/kg/min). His time is achievable by a good runner with a vo2max of 53ml/kg/min, that same athlete would have trouble breaking a 5 minute mile though, running it at approximately 5:30.

I'm not suggesting that Lance has a vo2max of 53 because that wouldn't get him anywhere near a pro contract (even with doping), but it perhaps explains why he made his 5 minute mile comment, he must have some really terrible running economy.

 

[blackcat]

I suppose if someone cheated with a dictionary at a spelling bee, you would proclaim their "latent talent" just as readily?

Armstrong's only talent has been at cheating better than everyone else. He has been doping ever since he was on the junior team under Carmichael. That is twenty or so years. Seriously, think about that.

On ergometer test, he wasn't even the best rider on his own team. Van Velde performed better than Lance ever did but the result was hidden from Lance to not upset him and Velde so that he was stay as a domestique.

that was a lactic acid test by CVdV and that was Vaughters' story. JC may not have been laying the groundwork for a plausible deniability strategy, but do you believe everything he says. I dont.

The thing to the story was, the subtext, Armstrong's one marque of his physiological parameters that was supposedly off the bell curve even for the pro ranks, was his lactate results.

I said in the original post, he had been doping since triathlon. Not USAC jnr teams and his boywonder appellation.

 

[Zweistein]

that was a lactic acid test by CVdV and that was Vaughters' story. JC may not have been laying the groundwork for a plausible deniability strategy, but do you believe everything he says. I dont.

The thing to the story was, the subtext, Armstrong's one marque of his physiological parameters that was supposedly off the bell curve even for the pro ranks, was his lactate results.

I said in the original post, he had been doping since triathlon. Not USAC jnr teams and his boywonder appellation.

No, Hamilton has confirmed the same story about Van Velde.

Lemond's and I might even say Taylor Phinney's junior records show what someone off the bell curve looks like. Armstrong left no such impression.

 

[Zweistein]

he has probably never doped after the age of 20-ish.

Do you follow cycling?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Armchair analysis here;

His first marathon after retiring certainly was interesting since it was 2:59:36 (the winner did 2:09:57).
That's a really slow time considering his vo2max (even for an un-doped vo2max for a hypothetical athlete with a vo2max of 75ml/kg/min). His time is achievable by a good runner with a vo2max of 53ml/kg/min, that same athlete would have trouble breaking a 5 minute mile though, running it at approximately 5:30.

I'm not suggesting that Lance has a vo2max of 53 because that wouldn't get him anywhere near a pro contract (even with doping), but it perhaps explains why he made his 5 minute mile comment, he must have some really terrible running economy.

Got any working to back these figures up?

Or do we accept you at face value coz you're actually Krebs Cycle when he's not ranting and raving?

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Ivan Basso.















2010 Giro.

 

[function]

Got any working to back these figures up?

Or do we accept you at face value coz you're actually Krebs Cycle when he's not ranting and raving?

Thanks for the pointless attack, the equations for estimating required vo2max for running pace are all over the net. Since you prefer insults to discussion, I'll let you find them yourself.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Thanks for the pointless attack, the equations for estimating required vo2max for running pace are all over the net. Since you prefer insults to discussion, I'll let you find them yourself.

Since you agreed with Krebs Cycle insulting me, it seemed you were of his ilk.

Your inability to back up your claims with anything approaching an understanding or explanation of what you purport to understand further reinforces your similarities.

Just as long as we know where we stand.

ETA: in case you forget what you said: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1031040&postcount=695

 

[function]

Since you agreed with Krebs Cycle insulting me, it seemed you were of his ilk.

Your inability to back up your claims with anything approaching an understanding or explanation of what you purport to understand further reinforces your similarities.

Just as long as we know where we stand.

ETA: in case you forget what you said: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1031040&postcount=695

So you are "the big ring", I thought you were banned...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

So you are "the big ring", I thought you were banned...

Banned? I'm only just getting warmed up.

 

[python]

^^^^guys, let's cool it.

the point one poster was making that not being able to run out of 5 minutes as a high school kid in a miler, was/is a poor marker of the future 'world class', yes, even in another endurance sport.

any estimates of his vo2 max from those results are pointless, however, function's remark about his low efficiency or running economy is accurate. in a way, imo, the fact reinforces the wow about not being able to beat 5 minutes...because in those distant days armstrong's junior body was much closer to a typical runner's body than it will ever be or was. plus he ran a lot in those days as part of his triathlon training.

as to armstrong's real vo2 max ..., well, there is a number that i am inclined to believe - one of not too many from the infamous ed coyle paper - 66. that's what he was measured at 8 months after his chemotherapy.

also, it would be interesting to compare running performance of the world's best from another endurance sport - cross country skiing (the sport i practice and know better than cycling) to armstrong's.

for example petter northug, by all measures the best skier of the last couple seasons, regularly runs 3k at about 9 minutes. that means he comfortably beats 5 min/mile.

 

[Walkman]

^^^^guys, let's cool it.

the point one poster was making that not being able to run out of 5 minutes as a high school kid in a miler, was/is a poor marker of the future 'world class', yes, even in another endurance sport.

any estimates of his vo2 max from those results are pointless, however, function's remark about his low efficiency or running economy is accurate. in a way, imo, the fact reinforces the wow about not being able to beat 5 minutes...because in those distant days armstrong's junior body was much closer to a typical runner's body than it will ever be or was. plus he ran a lot in those days as part of his triathlon training.

as to armstrong's real vo2 max ..., well, there is a number that i am inclined to believe - one of not too many from the infamous ed coyle paper - 66. that's what he was measured at 8 months after his chemotherapy.

also, it would be interesting to compare running performance of the world's best from another endurance sport - cross country skiing (the sport i practice and know better than cycling) to armstrong's.

for example petter northug, by all measures the best skier of the last couple seasons, regularly runs 3k at about 9 minutes. that means he comfortably beats 5 min/mile.

Swedish XC-skier Gunde Svan had a VO2 Max of 80 when he was 20 and peaked at 91. Sven-Åke Lundbäck measured a VO2 Max of 94 in his prime.

Per Elofsson is perhaps the most extreme. He measured a VO2 Max of 88 when he was 20 years old! You should read his book, it's astonishing how much he trained and what he did to his own body. Brutal, just brutal!

 

[Alpehue]

^^^^guys, let's cool it.

the point one poster was making that not being able to run out of 5 minutes as a high school kid in a miler, was/is a poor marker of the future 'world class', yes, even in another endurance sport.

any estimates of his vo2 max from those results are pointless, however, function's remark about his low efficiency or running economy is accurate. in a way, imo, the fact reinforces the wow about not being able to beat 5 minutes...because in those distant days armstrong's junior body was much closer to a typical runner's body than it will ever be or was. plus he ran a lot in those days as part of his triathlon training.

as to armstrong's real vo2 max ..., well, there is a number that i am inclined to believe - one of not too many from the infamous ed coyle paper - 66. that's what he was measured at 8 months after his chemotherapy.

also, it would be interesting to compare running performance of the world's best from another endurance sport - cross country skiing (the sport i practice and know better than cycling) to armstrong's.

for example petter northug, by all measures the best skier of the last couple seasons, regularly runs 3k at about 9 minutes. that means he comfortably beats 5 min/mile.

Yeah but then again, im pretty sure Petter aint human..

 

[Neworld]

Do you follow cycling?

Easy 2 stones.

My fault tho, I was supposed to say, "he has NEVER NOT doped since he was 20." My bad.

On another note I though about uneven playing fields after doping investigations and retirement. Until now, Rasmussen, Jan, Landis, Jaske, Heras, Valv...have all suffered financially, emationally and professionally from investigations. Not Lance. That has changed and will hopefully continue to.

NW

 

[TubularBills]

Level & Playing Field?

are mutually exclusive in modern cycling.

Therefore, as a million clinic threads testify absolut fixion.

If you want level compare these:

NFL | WWF

Nascar | Hot Wheels

Tennis | Olympic Swimming

Rock Stars | Heroin

Liberace | Plastic Surgery


~ Sir Oxymoron

(Sorry ignore this post, unless you want to compare "Even | Level")

 

[blackcat]

like that post

 

[runninboy]

I really need to revisit this again for some of you to put my comments in perspective. Lance in High school could not break 5 minutes for the mile and yet he was supposedly a tremendous natural talent and competed AND WON sprint tri's even at the national level. Sprint tri's at the time were not any specific distance as they were relatively new. Very short runs, many times only a mile or two no more than 3. So having decent mile speed was important to him at that time as it was HIS PROFESSION(turned pro in high school)!

For you purists with no gauge of what a 5 minute mile translates to, it would be like someone having tremendous natural talent based on time trialing at 20mph. Not many of us would see that as talent. Yet that is what a 5 minute mile is like to a competitive runner. Pedestrian. Old men do it. In high school it was pretty typical that cross country running was a place for people to get a letter. Alot of schools did not cut anyone, if you merely participated and did the workouts even if you were never selected to run a race you would receive a letter at the end of the year. We had guys who, literally ,could not run a mile at a time when they started the season. They had to walk much of the workouts. Eventually they would be able to run the whole way, it was not pretty but they would make it. 8 minutes then 7 then 6 then 5 something. I cannot say for sure that they all broke 5, but if they did not, they were pretty close. These people were not athletes, let alone gifted athletes, let alone one of the best swim/bike/runners in the nation.

Lance exposed himself by admitting how slow of runner he was in high school while a PROFESSIONAL TRIATHLETE. Not a pure cyclist but a guy being paid to run. Not marathons but distances not much longer than a mile.
In contrast Dave Scott & Mark Allen who did Ironman distances were able to run just about 6 minutes a mile for an entire marathon AFTER having swum 2 miles and biked 112! Or to put it another way if you made Dave Scott & Mark Allen swim 2 miles Bike 112 and run 25 miles 385 yards and then had a perfectly rested Lance race them for a mile he would beat them at most by less than a minute....

Lance? Not even close to being a naturally talented athlete.
Mitch Kingery was a natural athlete. As a 16 year old ran an entire marathon in 2hr 23 minutes which avg 5:30 per mile
for more than 26 miles!
Lance could run one that fast at 16...

Trying to think of a few naturals. Motocross champ Johnny Omara ran the mile in the 4 20 range
Tom Cruise was in the 4 30's. Yeah there is a naturally gifted athlete.
John Elway the quarterback was pretty big in high school 6 2 or so about 190
and he could break 5 minutes for the mile in high school.
Chris Knight(Peter from the Brady Bunch) could break 5. he was a hurdler in high school
Dennis Weaver (McCloud) was a decathlete with a best of well under 5 minutes for the mile.
The actor Bruce Dern in his 40's ran the half mile in 2 minutes which is equivalent to a sub 5 minute mile.
Jim Thorpe was pretty stocky. more of a football player/sprinter than a runner
4 30's for the mile.
the record for the beer mile is around 5 minutes. you have to chug a beer every lap and keep it down.
So some guy could drink beer and run as fast as Lance. Isn't that the definition of non sport? If you can drink beer while doing it then it is not a sport.

Donkey is a kind description.

 

[Le breton]

the point one poster was making that not being able to run out of 5 minutes as a high school kid in a miler, was/is a poor marker of the future 'world class', yes, even in another endurance sport.

any estimates of his vo2 max from those results are pointless, however, function's remark about his low efficiency or running economy is accurate. in a way, imo, the fact reinforces the wow about not being able to beat 5 minutes...because in those distant days armstrong's junior body was much closer to a typical runner's body than it will ever be or was. plus he ran a lot in those days as part of his triathlon training.

as to armstrong's real vo2 max ..., well, there is a number that i am inclined to believe - one of not too many from the infamous ed coyle paper - 66. that's what he was measured at 8 months after his chemotherapy.

also, it would be interesting to compare running performance of the world's best from another endurance sport - cross country skiing (the sport i practice and know better than cycling) to armstrong's.

for example petter northug, by all measures the best skier of the last couple seasons, regularly runs 3k at about 9 minutes. that means he comfortably beats 5 min/mile.

I agree with what you wrote there, even more so as I fall in that category of very poor runners who are decent cyclists.

However there is a type of running where a good correlation with VO2 exists : running uphill on fairly steep slopes ( > 8-10%). With little or almost no training I would normally finish in the 30-40 percentile in local (30-40 minutes) foot races, but on uphill races it would be more like top 10%.

Running upstairs is obviously also a good marker of VO2 and it looks to me like cyclists are better suited for that type of exercise than "flat" runners.
(actually running upstairs is the best cross-training exercise -for cyclists - I know of, and I used to do it often at work at lunchtime years ago)

Now, coming back to L.A. and his VO2, there is a very good source - in my opinion - that I seem to be the only one to ever mention on this forum : the june 1996 scientific american magazine.

I scanned the relevant article once for Poupou, so, even though you don't like me, it would please me to send it to you in a PM if you were interested.

 

[Vino attacks everyone]

Vino ofc is up there

 

[Dear Wiggo]

FWIW Porte reportedly ran 30min flat / sub 30 min for 10km at the end of olympic distance tris (1500m swim, 40km bike, 10km run). That's the equivalent of 4.8min miles for 10km (~7miles). Around 18 years of age, from memory.