Originally Posted by
cat0020
I suspect that the film maker didn't quite get his PED regiment suited for his race..
What are the criteria to compare between previous year performance vs PED regiment performance?
Are the race course identical?
Similar weather conditions?
Racing against the same racers as previous year?
All those can affect race performance, not just the PED regiment.
Film maker did say that the recovery between day to day racing and post race with the PED regiment was significant... could that make a difference?
His PED regimen was administered and guided by experts. He, and his experts, knew what the race was about - 7 consecutive climbing stages of racing. When it was done, he said, as plainly as possible, that he had a better performance the year before, without the drugs.
He was clearly hoping PEDs would show that he could have been a pro racer if he'd have gone for it. He seemed to have believed that the main difference between him and the pros was that they used PEDs. He was almost in tears as he acknowledged the realization that even in his youth, and using PEDs, that he could never have been a great pro rider.
Put in academic terms, he started the film with a thesis, and he was unable to prove it. It's more complex and subtle than he realized. PEDs did not move him from being a very good rider to being a great rider. If he hadn't stumbled into a connection with Rodchenkov, I'm certain the film would never have been completed and released, just as scientists don't publish negative results when experiments fail.