Do you think lance is doping? yes or no

Roadie_scum

Gee. Millar looked like a different rider last year. Amazing in the TTs at the tour. And the Vuelta stage win. And the worlds. Always promising... but gee whiz...

It is possible that some elites have such high endogenous production of certain ergogenic substances that exogenous supplementation is less helpful than to 'normal' athletes. I don't think this would be true for all substances.

An explanation for why PED's don't turn a good rider into a great rider is that all the great riders are already using them. Or that there are legal ergogenic aids being used with similar effects that we are unaware.



Although it's often repeated as an article of faith amongst those who disagree with a certain scientific viewpoint, I'm not convinced there are many circumstances where 'real world' results and tests are starkly different (without further explanation - eg results may be different where temperatures, hydration of athletes, testing equipment, etc is different). Tests are performed in the 'real world' last time I checked.

Since when did athletes demonstrate a great understanding of their own capabilities and physiology?

Beastt

I'm talking about the breaking point of certain body tissues; tearing ligaments, pulling muscles, joint sprains. All of these things can result from training without performance enhancing drugs. If you increase aerobic power 10%, then you're only more likely to cause such tissue damage. After much training at an elevated level, the body tissues strengthen in an attempt to match the stress they must endure. But the fact that the tissues can be stressed to the breaking point without PEDs, suggests that the real advantage to using PEDs is that it makes it easier, less painful, to train more consistantly at the physical limits of the body tissues.

I do see that PEDs might allow an athlete to press at maximum for longer periods without muscles fatiguing to the point of failure which I hadn't taken into account before. I think it arguable that the advantage is as significant as some would claim.

Julian Radowsky

Hmm... Ric you here?
Have any double blind tests with PEDs and placebos been done?
Was there any recorded placebo affect?

__________________
If you look after your body, it might last you a lifetime.

"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough." - Mario Andretti

A bus station is where a bus stops.
A train station is where a train stops.
On my desk, I have a work station....
what more can I say.......

meehs

Again, all very good points!




Okay, so let's say for the sake of argument that Armstong does in fact benefit from the full 10% (or more!) performance increase that has been proven in the testing. The "Armstrong-is-a-doper" contingent keeps pointing to LA's pre-cancer and post-cancer improvement as sufficient evidence to condemn him as a doper and insinuate that it's the PED's have elevated him to the level that he's performing at today. Basically they would have all of us beleive that his victories are not genuine because he's juiced on on PED's. Many of you guys also say that the entire pro peloton is PED fueled (which may very well be true!).

I would argue that:

1. Since his recovery from cancer, Armstrong has shown a lot greater than a 10% performance increase. He went from being a guy who might be a threat to win a stage of the TdF but was unable to contend for a GC title (and in some cases he was unable to finish) to a guy who has won six TdF's in a row (in some cases stomping his competition). This is far too great an improvement to be explained away by the 10% (or greater) increase supposedly garnered by using PED's. So - in my opinion - PED's can't possibly account in full for LA's improvement (which again, is what some would seem to want us to believe).

2. If the entire pro peleton is doping, and the slate were wiped clean (by eliminating PED's from the equation) so to speak, LA would still be winning. The idea that LA's TdF wins can be contributed only to drug use and without them he wouldn't be there is completely ridiculous!

I've never really argued anything more than the fact that LA is probably just as clean and just as innocent as any other rider (with a few possible exceptions) in the peloton. So what I have trouble with is when some folks call LA's victories disingenuous but they do not point to anyone else who's winning. It's like they've singled out Armstrong as the villain just becuase he's the one winning the TdF. Armstrong's victories are false but for everyone else it's okay!?!?! I've read in some books (read "Put Me Back on My Bike" by William Fotheringham, the story of Tom Simpson) and articles that PED's are and will always be an accepted part of top-level cycling, that that's just the way it is. Not just today but in past years as well.

And that's sort-of my whole point. Why has Armstrong been singled out as the big scoundrel and "dirty rider"?




I'm not sure what you're getting at here or it's relevence to this discussion but I would argue that not only LA but most of the top riders have an intimate understanding of their physiology and athletic capabilities!!! At the top level, that's what it's all about.

moo-jo

I voted yes, by accident, because i don't know, i certainly hopew he isn't, there will always be people doping in the sport, but LA has proved that you can overcome even the dopers if you work hard, train and stay commited, oh and have a team totally loyal to you. If he is using, it would be a huge shame, but just means that i can beat his record in a few years time.

__________________
I don't suffer from insanity, i enjoy it.

Roadie_scum

What I'm getting at is that Millar may not have a good understanding of the differences that the drugs make. Top athletes have coaches and advisers because they don't have great technical knowledge. Their job is to ride quickly and win races, not to understand exercise physiology. Some of them do have a great understanding, but a lot of what even top level pros say is junk.

HellonWheels

Yeah, Lance is doping. He's on the same drug I'm on: endorphins! beats EPO!

(And after seeing that naked pic of him on his bike from Vanity Fair in 1999, it sure makes me wish I could BE his Trek bike! Ride on, Lance!)

__________________
"He who conquers himself is the mightiest warrior"--Confucius

Meek One

I think he is. "When in Rome.." goes the old saying.

I think cyclists probably pump more stuff than pro wrestlers.

He is still an awesome athlete, but eating your Wheaties doesn't cut it in this pharmaceutical sports arena we live in today, but we can all dream about how it used to be.......

Oh and I think Beastt is LA.

Virenque

I agree with all! With that about Beastt too hehehe

run_and_ride

I always thought Beastt was Cheryl Crow!

Virenque

I didnt see Beastt for awhile now, so what about Bruyneel (too busy in Spain these days )?

run_and_ride

Could be Bruyneel, or maybe he was giving his blood for a transfusion for Tyler Hamilton. I hope he is okay.

rtol299

I Have no problem with him being on the Charge As Far As Im concenred it is part of Pro Cycling He is awesome even without the charge.

This Years Olympics were drug tested to the max so every one came off the charge.

David Rebillon who is on asweome one day form did not go
Why did lance not go
I find it hard to belive that he has doen what he has doen without the help of something