• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Why LA is not a doper (seriously)

Page 14 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Eva Maria

BANNED
May 24, 2009
387
0
0
Visit site
ProTour said:
Of course it's a jump, but conspiracy theorists love to jump, and are prone to make tremendous erroneous leaps of faith when it comes to a certain 7 time winner of the TdF.

So true.

A good example is the 99 positives. People try to explain it away as a French conspiracy that tampered with the samples. Some people actually believe this, even though experts have explained how it takes a "tremendous erroneous leap of faith" to believe such a conspiracy is possible.
 
While we're on the topic, so to speak, can anyone tell me where the source is for Lance's giant heart being the reason for his winning so much. I have heard this come up somewhat recently, mostly on boards by fanboys, but it wasn't until yesterday that a baseball fan I know said something akin to "Lance didn't dope. No way. He has a giant heart. That's why he won." OF course I know this is nonsense, but I'd like to know where this fallacy came from, and how it has made it's way to the mainstream. Anyone know?
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
While we're on the topic, so to speak, can anyone tell me where the source is for Lance's giant heart being the reason for his winning so much. I have heard this come up somewhat recently, mostly on boards by fanboys, but it wasn't until yesterday that a baseball fan I know said something akin to "Lance didn't dope. No way. He has a giant heart. That's why he won." OF course I know this is nonsense, but I'd like to know where this fallacy came from, and how it has made it's way to the mainstream. Anyone know?

Ed Coyle said he has the heart the ize of a seven foot man. This was of course taken apart by MA, when MA quite rightly pointed out that the heart was never actually measured.
 
Jul 30, 2009
38
0
0
Visit site
elapid said:
4. Weight loss is another myth perpetuated by Lance and his PR machine. Coyle wrote a scientific paper on Lance Armstrong which detailed his actual and lean body weights in November 1992, February 1993 and November 1999. This is the only objective evidence that I know of that details Lance's body weights. His body weight in November 1999 is slightly heavier than 1992 and 1993.

Just a point on this:

The weight loss thing was said to be losing weight from the upper body - like BW did this year (though his was total weight loss as well) - it's certainly possible to lose weight from the upper body whilst gaining it on the legs - thus giving a overall body weight of approx the same. This would increase the overall power to weight ratio if his power output went up due to increased leg muscle. Also, judging weights from 92/93 and 99 don't make sense, it would have to be 96 against 99 to make any relevant sense.

Whether it did actually happen is another point entirely of course, 'm just pointing out that the argument could hold up in theory.
 
Apr 9, 2009
976
0
0
Visit site
Alpe d'Huez said:
Thanks digger. I just find it amusing that so many people talk about him having a heart the size of a watermelon. And yet, no proof! And no comparison to other athletes either!

Well, I would imagine Lance probably does have a larger than normal heart, having been a professional endurance athlete most his life. What Coyle didn't say (but probably knows) is that just about every Euro-pro probably falls in that category. As well as top swimmers, etc. If your resting heart rate is 38, you probably have a larger than normal heart.

It's like when they say he produces less lactic acid (or clears it faster) than normal. Than a normal human? Duh.
 
Kennf1 said:
Well, I would imagine Lance probably does have a larger than normal heart, having been a professional endurance athlete most his life. What Coyle didn't say (but probably knows) is that just about every Euro-pro probably falls in that category. As well as top swimmers, etc. If your resting heart rate is 38, you probably have a larger than normal heart.

It's like when they say he produces less lactic acid (or clears it faster) than normal. Than a normal human? Duh.

I see what you're saying. But Coyle made the assumption...assumptions are the mother of all f*** ups.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
clearhop said:
Also, judging weights from 92/93 and 99 don't make sense, it would have to be 96 against 99 to make any relevant sense.

I agree with some of what you are saying, but the whole myth of Lance's weight loss contributing to his transformation from a classic to GT rider is based on Coyle's paper. This is because Coyle used preseason weights from 1992 and 1993 and an estimated racing weight from 1999 of 72 kg. How stupid is that - saying that Armstrong has lost weight and reduced his body fat when Coyle is comparing racing weights to preseason weights (and not using the measured preseason weight in 1999 which clearly shows no weight loss) and he has not measured percentage body fat. The distribution of weight loss/gain has received little attention and the whole fallacy of Armstrong's weight loss is based on Coyle's use of his 1999 racing weight, one which Armstrong later admitted he never raced at anyway. The only data we have is preseasons 1992, 1993 and 1999. All other arguments are irrelevant until the appropriate data is shown.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,086
1
0
Visit site
Digger said:
I see what you're saying. But Coyle made the assumption...assumptions are the mother of all f*** ups.

I disagree. As a scientist, these types of "assumptions" are totally inexcusable and border on scientific fraud. Anyone that has completed any scientific training knows that they have to use the same piece of equipment throughout an experiment or the data is not usable. The fact that Coyle has a PhD and is a professor at a good university means that he should very well know that. In my field, it would be enough to completely discredit your entire body of work and it should discredit his......
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
Cobber said:
I disagree. As a scientist, these types of "assumptions" are totally inexcusable and border on scientific fraud. Anyone that has completed any scientific training knows that they have to use the same piece of equipment throughout an experiment or the data is not usable. The fact that Coyle has a PhD and is a professor at a good university means that he should very well know that. In my field, it would be enough to completely discredit your entire body of work and it should discredit his......

+1. Couldn't agree more.
 
And........

AAMilne said:
No the dog did not eat my homework. Here is my thoughts, you probably saw it before:
1.he had been tested more than anybody in any sports, and everyone is after him – still no positives
2.Can it be that the ‘99 epo test results were somehow affected by medication he still was under for his cancer (and were approved)?
3.He may have (I guess he surely did) doped before his cancer. It is unfathomable to think that he continued after his cancer with what many believed was the cause of his cancer. You don’t barely survive just to commit suicide
4.If he doped before (almost certain) and after (as most people believe), what accounts to his amazing improvement? It is still weight loss mainly. He was always much stronger than any cyclist in the peloton, but now the power/weight is coming into play, as well as a better cardiovascular efficiency.
5.Coming back from 3+ years of no bicycle competition, claiming he is trying to raise awareness for his charity, what can he gain by doping? He can only lose if getting caught – his charity will be dusted, his reputation completely tarnished. On the other hand, losing now makes almost no difference as long as his charity (and his new cycling team) gets bigger and more famous, paving the way to possible political career, as many mentioned. In short, coming back and doping again makes no sense – he can only lose
6. Phil Anderson smile is not convincing

Am I naïve? Most probably, so what?


AGREE ....... and you might add:

He doesn't need to (or no longer needs to) because he can afford weekly flights to and from high altitude training etc etc.

I think Lance's doping, or non dopingg has or should become a non-issue.
In future, if ICI follows WADA's lead and really DOES test stored samples we can finally make a real dent in doping.
 
Cobber said:
I disagree. As a scientist, these types of "assumptions" are totally inexcusable and border on scientific fraud. Anyone that has completed any scientific training knows that they have to use the same piece of equipment throughout an experiment or the data is not usable. The fact that Coyle has a PhD and is a professor at a good university means that he should very well know that. In my field, it would be enough to completely discredit your entire body of work and it should discredit his......

I'm not sure you got what I meant!!! I totally agree with you. The guy is a farce, and I went into it on another thread my views for that. My academic background is in another field, other than science, but my point was that masking assumptions, such as the ones Coyle made, were an absolute disgrace. And calling them 'assumptions' is being kind. Because in some examples from that paper, there appears to be far far worse.
 
is 330 posts enough?

I am a former lance believer (as well as a floyd believer - at least I still dream of Floyd competing at a high level), if you can't get over this cr@p it just takes you down.

These folks that want to believe...heck with'em .... the overhead on their psyche to try and keep it all clear in their head so they can keep believing is just exhausting.

Lance doesn't mind one little bit the purgatory he makes these folks suffer through. Just leave 'em alone. That will make you a more decent person than Lance.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
1
0
Visit site
Old Derailleur-in-the-mist said:
In future, if ICI follows WADA's lead and really DOES test stored samples we can finally make a real dent in doping.

This is the problem and deserves the energy of every cycling fan. It's time to stop crying about the past and focus on what can done with the future to level the playing field. Make it too dangerous to cheat and the cheating ends.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,086
1
0
Visit site
Digger said:
I'm not sure you got what I meant!!! I totally agree with you. The guy is a farce, and I went into it on another thread my views for that. My academic background is in another field, other than science, but my point was that masking assumptions, such as the ones Coyle made, were an absolute disgrace. And calling them 'assumptions' is being kind. Because in some examples from that paper, there appears to be far far worse.

Ahhh.. sorry..... I guess I was just taking exception to the word "assumption".
 
Jul 30, 2009
38
0
0
Visit site
elapid said:
I agree with some of what you are saying, but the whole myth of Lance's weight loss contributing to his transformation from a classic to GT rider is based on Coyle's paper.

Is that the source of it in "It's not about the Bike" - I'm sure that's the place i read about it, but it was many years ago so I'm not 100% on that...
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
clearhop said:
Is that the source of it in "It's not about the Bike" - I'm sure that's the place i read about it, but it was many years ago so I'm not 100% on that...

I think so. It's a never ending circle (kind of like most Lance threads!). Coyle says Lance lost weight because Lance told him he weighed 72 kg in the 1999 TdF. Coyle publishes this and then Lance says Coyle says I am a better climber because I lost weight. Makes you dizzy.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,654
2
0
Visit site
ggusta said:
is 330 posts enough?

I am a former lance believer (as well as a floyd believer - at least I still dream of Floyd competing at a high level), if you can't get over this cr@p it just takes you down.

These folks that want to believe...heck with'em .... the overhead on their psyche to try and keep it all clear in their head so they can keep believing is just exhausting.

Lance doesn't mind one little bit the purgatory he makes these folks suffer through. Just leave 'em alone. That will make you a more decent person than Lance.

Don't you guys get bored about talking about lance's doping? 90% of us recognise the facts, read through the lies and can see that his 'stories' don't quite add up.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Visit site
elapid said:
How about Lance and Bruyneel dumping Floyd's blood down the toilet when he told them he accepted a contract from Phonak? This was detailed in a subpoened text message between Jonathon Vaughters and Frankie Andreau.

How about Lance getting US Postal/Discovery exclusive access to Dr. Ferrari?

Of course Landis knew what was going on, just like Lance knew what was going on.

Oh, thats new for me. I tought i got everything already. But i clearly missed this.
Could you give a link for this?
It would explain even further how an Avg.-Rider could transform into exellence and beat the most talented riders for 7 years in a row.Wao!!
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Oh, thats new for me. I tought i got everything already. But i clearly missed this.
Could you give a link for this?
It would explain even further how an Avg.-Rider could transform into exellence and beat the most talented riders for 7 years in a row.Wao!!

The subpoened text message between Vaughters and Andreau is in Walsh's book "From Lance to Landis". It was subpoened for the SCA Promotions trial. While this ended up being a contractual dispute, the damage done to Lance and his PR machine was quite substantial with the amount of dirty laundry that was aired. To the best of my knowledge, he has not sued anyone since this trial.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Visit site
ProTour said:
I read the whole piece, Ashendon seems confused, unqualified, and illegitimate, as many readers noted in the comments after the interview. First he implies everyone doped, because there was no test in the 99 tour, then he dwells on the supposed fact that only 8% of the riders supposedly tested positive for EPO. He has no legitimacy, which is why you never hear about him in any legitimate cycling sources. Probably just another vengeful Aussie ****ed that Lance kicked Cadel Evans *** so badly time after time.

If Lance was doping now, he would have tested positive, as others already have this year. Bottom line: Lance hasn't. Has that occurred to you yet?:confused:

You are the biggest ignorant on this forum so far. Ashenden is the guy who worked out the Epo-Test. HE KNOWS F A R MORE then you little Fanboy. I am sorry for you falling into the Lance-PR-Trap.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Visit site
elapid said:
The subpoened text message between Vaughters and Andreau is in Walsh's book "From Lance to Landis". It was subpoened for the SCA Promotions trial. While this ended up being a contractual dispute, the damage done to Lance and his PR machine was quite substantial with the amount of dirty laundry that was aired. To the best of my knowledge, he has not sued anyone since this trial.

Yeah i was reading the book from "Lance to Landis". But my Question was about how did Lance get exclusive to Dr.-Epo-Ferrari. I mean if Disco/Postal were the only clients, it would explain how he beat the more talented riders for 7 years. I´d like to have a link for this.