Cat4Lifer

How does Armstrong's undefined "low octane" and "high octane" terms make it unreasonable compare blood transfusions of the 70s with the blood transfusions of the "modern era," BTW?

BTW, do you know what LA meant by low octane and high octane?

gsteinb

hahaha. It's fun watching you cling so tenuously to this position. Even in the face of the guy you repeatedly defend making the very same distinction I was making. It is truly the high point of this particular forum. Congrats. Don't ever change.

In answer to your question I know exactly what Armstrong is saying (even without the editorial clarification in the same interview stating what it meant), and more to the point that blood manipulation was not the standard until well after the time frame you'd like to imagine it was, which is exactly what Armstrong is saying in that particular bit. It may have been going on, but not with with the universality or sophistication it came to have. It was clearly possible to compete without blood manipulation up to a certain period in time, and after that period in the time it was no longer possible. While you may like to continue to debate these things, at this point given the wide spread admissions these are simply facts now.

As to the advances in blood manipulation like more effective transfusions, or transfusing blood that had been already manipulated by the use of EPO (which wasn't available until the late 80s) then withdrawn, or the use of drugs like EPO or Cera in high or micro dosages clearly there have been medical advances since Merckx was winning tours. So yeah, there's that.

Creakyknees

trustnoone

How defined do you need it? Cycling News: [Armstrong later defined "low-octane" as meaning "Cortisone, etc"– ed.] Armstrong also went on to say: "That worked okay in 1993 but it did not work okay in 1994. In that winter between '93 and '94, there was a tectonic shift."

So without a pharmaceutical laundry list I can deduce that Pre '94 and post '94 the doping methods were significantly different. Lance likely spent more and made more on doping than anyone else in the history of any sport anywhere. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could hold his wheel but on the matter of how doping was different between pre-94 and post-94 I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

Does thinking that previous era's doped better defend you feelings on Lance Armstrong? I can't see why it would. If you are possibly the last remaining Lance fan be it for what you think is positive about him. Being a Lance fan because riders were using Reactivan in the 1960's makes no sense what so ever. Don't be a Lance fan because someone hasn't "Defined" what doping is.

It's not easy being a cycling fan. Races were doped, bought, sold, fixed and controlled since the start of professional cycling. It is not as easy as watching one race a year and hanging off sh*tty commentary. There is a lot of cycling history being published these days. It's not all about Lance and cheating. It may be a shady sport but it's fascinating.

Gerryattrick

What a depressing video.

kingsqueak

Just finished reading Wheelmen. It changed my perspective. Do I think he's some sort of a pariah? No. I think he was doing, better (doping), what many others were doing at the time. Someone eventually had to be caught however and I think he could have handled it in a way that would have worked out better for him in time than he did.

At the same time, it's a lot easier with hindsight on my fat ass in an office chair to strategize.

I never really followed the tour in detail and the accounts were amazing to read. The few times where he basically could decide if he wanted to let someone take a climb really amused me...animal power on tap. Pretty incredible.

I really don't believe the sport is suddenly clean either...

I still think the guy is an incredible athlete and with so many doing similar things in so many other sports, I really don't think a lot less of him as a result.

Allez3

This was what I saw in the mid to late 80s. Half the players were doped up. Even the coaches kid went super human. Then you started seeing weird injuries, a lot of which you see today. I think the roid use provides the speed and strength, but the ligaments can't hold up so you're seeing all the torn ACLs and MCLs you didn't see years ago. A lot of these guys are a mess from "Coach, it hurts. Give me a shot of something."

work4bike

I don't defend LA, but damn the dude was a natural https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFkAhs4vAsk

That's him when he was only 15 y/o against the best in the world of Triathletes, including Dave Scott and Mark Allen.

MinnMan

In case anybody still cares.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/sp...pw&rref=sports

roadwarrior

Everybody was cheating. They just did a better job at it than the others.

If you are going to neutralize the winner neutralize the entire finishing order.

Bottomline, you go into any sport at a professional level, well the ticket buyers have no idea what is really going on. My experience parallels Joe Parkin's in "A Dog in a Hat". It is what it is. You don't like it, you leave.

The latest? Xenon gas. Look it up.

If people want clean bike races, you make them shorter. Look at the Tour route, or the Giro and then people are shocked that riders get help to get through them.

It's hilarious.

Bottom line, if any of you were faced with the possibility of losing your livelihood or doing something outside the bounds of what was "kosher", I'd bet hard money most would do what it takes. You might feel guilty (read "Cycle of Lies" and read about how some of thise riders felt when they made the leap versus getting the boot) about it, but supporting yourself and your family probably would come first.

asgelle

Why do people continue repeating this absurdity? In cycling doping is used down to races of 200m (~10 seconds). In athletics, it goes down to 60m (~6 seconds). So how short do you want races to be?

roadwarrior

Where is/was this conversation? Road cycling. And I specifically referred to grand tours. Which is where most of the noise is. The thread was about Armstrong.

Since this is a cycling forum, athletics is best left to a running forum.

C'mon man.

And in road cycling they are already on to the next big thing. Xenon gas.

asgelle

Fair enough. Doping has never been proven in cycling for events as short as 6 seconds. That limit is 10 seconds. So by your logic, to prevent doping, Grand Tours must be less than 10 seconds in length (though we don't know how much less) to prevent doping.

Zero7

I don't believe "everybody was cheating," and based on recent articles this is true. So yes - it's unfortunate that to win, riders had to dope. But make no mistake, it's still cheating, and the race wins should go to the first clean rider across the line. If that's number 103, so what - he's still the fastest guy doing it on his own.

Sigh...just watched the video. What sucks is that if everyone was clean, Lance would probably still have won seven. When I saw him live at the Alpe d'Huez time trial, it was like he had another gear - he was that much faster than everyone else.

Cheers

roadwarrior

Love the logic. Thanks for the chuckle.

roadwarrior

Going back to the Motorola days, they (Lance and the gang) could not keep up. Thus it began in earnest.

In a weird way, their logic was sound....if this is the playing field, let's be the best.

When you play a game and then put a bunch of money on the table, it changes everything.

Dave Stohler: "Everybody cheats. I just ddn't know."

Dad: "Well now you know."

And I do not disagree with you.

zymphad

I'm with you. Lance raced against dopers and he still had another gear over everyone. Even if Wiggins/Froume doped, which they may (have you seen Froume's cadence, it's twice as fast as his competitors on the mountains, that's suspect to me), they still wouldn't be able to keep up with Lance.

EPO/Testerone may have given Armstrong a boost to level the playing field against fellow dopers... But they don't magically turn him into superman. Their' just enhancers. Any of us can train for 20 years and take EPO and we still wouldn't come close to what Lance accomplished. EPO didn't make Lance's lungs twice as big as mine, nor his heart 9 times more powerful than mine. He is gifted genetically but folks have to remember, he was top level cyclist at age 14, arguable one of the best Triathlete. You can't ignore that Armstrong has consistently won Iron Man contests that he's competed in.

Also Lance's training was unlike anyone else. He did what no other cyclist in the Tour de France did before. He trained for the race. The same way runners train for their event. You don't see 400m runners just randomnly going out for 2 hour runs on the open road. They are doing interval training on the track, getting ready to race their event on similar conditions.
- Lance did the same. He trained on specific parts of the TdF that he knew would be in the race again and where he was weak. He was weak on the mountains when he was with Morola. He spent months before the race training in the Pyrenees. With other cyclists you just see them going on long aimless rides. Even Sky team just go for long rides. They don't do interval training or practice riding specific aspects they are weak on. Lance trained for the mountains and he trained for the time trial.

Doping didn't do that, he did that.

asgelle

Still repeating the company line. See "Wheelmen" and "Cycle of Lies" for the documented truth.

(You also might want to read up on Arthur Lydiard for some perspective on endurance training.)

canam73

With out his doping program Lance would have won zero TdFs or any other grand tour.

If you look at the results from his early career he was not a GT contender at all, he was a one day race/classics rider and stage hunter with a skill set similar to a Philippe Gilbert. He was good at punchy power climbs and finishes but did not have the sustained climbing ability required to win an alpine style grand tour. That is where Lance's two favorite infractions, blood transfusions and EPO give a rider a big advantage and transformed LA into a guy who could use his natural punch to get a gap and then sustain a climbing attack to gain a big time advantage and then do it again the next day.

I still think he would have been a good rider, but without a significant blood doping program his forte would have remained in the one day race world.

achoo

Posting that means you're not looking at this objectively at all.

First, you CAN'T know that - because that never happened. Second, you CAN'T know how good his competitors would have been had they been clean.

After all, in his early career Armstrong did post a few stage wins in the TdF. To say someone who won a stage at 21 or 22 could never have won the TdF later is lame guesswork at best.

Interesting article here:

The Science of Lance Armstrong: Born, and Built, to Win

None of the PEDs Armstrong has admitted to taking would account for the ability claimed in that article for Armstrong to improve his muscular efficiency. Nor the claimed fact that Armstrong's muscles only produce 1/2 the lactic acid.

Hell, at what? 38? Armstrong was able to hang with a doped-up Contador and finish 3rd in the TdF.

What would Contador be without PEDs?

The fact that Armstrong could put himself on the TdF podium at 38 against known PED users tells you all you need to know about his 7 TdF wins out on the road when he was younger: he won 'em on a level playing field.

himespau 

Really? We're still talking about this?

canam73

Of course that is my opinion as nobody will ever know.

Cavendish has 25 TdF stage wins. It means nothing towards winning the overall GC. It is not an objective argument.

As for your Coyle article it has been widely refuted as part of the LA smoke screen. He was a paid consultant. Here is an example: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/sp...anted=all&_r=0. But if you don't like that one then google "Ed Coyle Armstrong" and you will find plenty more.

Are you suggesting we judge Armstrong by what he had admitted to taking?

The "Reasoned Decision" implicated Armstrong right through his 2010 TdF effort, i.e. he was still doping.

Contador without PEDs would still be a natural climber and good stage racer as he can also descend and TT well. He started his career that way and will end it that way.

What LA did at 38 says little about his 7 wins. As you said, "you CAN'T know how good his competitors would have been had they been clean." During his 7 wins and during his comeback the doping scene evolved and not all riders had the same doctors or programs. It wasn't level then and will never be.

achoo

That's "widely refuted"? LOL.

Are you suggesting he had some super-duper speshul seekrit PED that only he knew about that enabled him to win the TdF 7 times in a row and get on the podium at 38?

And NO ONE ELSE knew about it?

He did the same drugs everyone else did - and won while doing it. Level playing field.

And he got on the podium against other dopers.

At 38.

Level playing field.

So how the hell did Indurain go from a big TT specialist into a 5-time TdF winner?

Was he on Armstrong's "sooooper special secret PED" also?

LOL, again.

Like hell it does. If he'd come out of nowhere into his first TdF at 38 and wound up on the podium everyone in the world would have been wondering how many he'd have won if he'd started in his early 20s. Because 38 is well past prime athletic ages in everyone. PEDs or not.

Wrong. We know he was racing against PED users. And Contador was even on the same team as Armstrong, with the same doctors.

What wasn't level?

The fact that no rider - not Contador, not any rider who's failed multiple drug tests - has faced anywhere near the level of scrutiny that Armstrong was subjected to? That's certainly not level.

PS - Eddie Merckx failed tests for PED use three times. That's three times more than Armstrong ever failed. Should we subject Merckx to the same post-career scrutiny Armstrong was put under?

asgelle

As soon as I see someone claim Armstrong never failed a drug test, I know they're not operating in a reality based universe.

canam73

Yes: https://www.google.com/search?q=ed+c...sm=93&ie=UTF-8

Take your pick.



I'm suggesting blood doping and EPO were particularly well suited in helping Armstrong become a TdF GC competitor, something he would not have been otherwise. I do also believe he had better drug program than many of his competitors. All that would be fine if we were talking about legal training methods and advancements. It is how the game is played and one reason why certain people win and not others. But "level playing field" will never apply to doping unless it is legalized. During Lance's winning streak some pro riders were caught and suspended. Was their playing field level?



See above. If he was still doping it's not level, even some of his competitors were doping too.



Didn't like my explanation for Contador so you change the subject?



I have some other stuff to do now, but again and again: See above. If he was still doping it's not level, even some of his competitors were doping too.