Well, yes I did but your point is?
I presume that you're unaware of the strong suspicions around some of the riders in the top 10's since LA's retirement?
Armstrong charged and banned
- Thread starter yello
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I presume that you're unaware of the strong suspicions around some of the riders in the top 10's since LA's retirement?
My point is if you read the tables in the linked article, names are only crossed out, with a limited number of exceptions, in the years that Lance Armstrong won. In the lists for subsequent years most of them are not crossed out.
But LOCO seems to be saying that the fact LA won is sure fire evidence that he doped. Which as I say is an interesting approach as no-one can ever win on the basis that if they won they must have doped. As as soon as they are eliminated for doping, the next one on the list becomes the winner and is instantly disqualified too because to win they must have doped too.
Andrew_P
In between here and there
I am still pro LA, innocent until proven guilty. There are clouds over nearly all winners or people making sharp improvements.
I think you misunderstood him.
My point is that there are a significant number of questionable riders in later top 10s which seemed to indicate to me that you don't follow pro cycling very closely or you would have realised this.
Still, hey ho. It's all bluster and speculation until the authorities conclude their investigations.
This logic seems a bit contrived to me. I don't think LOCO meant that at all and it falls down if you look at the times up some of the more well known climbs in recent years. Evans, whom you name as an example, has continued to climb the mtns in the same times. Meanwhile, everyone else has got slower. Funnily enough, the fastest time up Alpe d'huez is in '97, pre EPO testing. Hinault, an acknowledged great rider, barely makes it onto the list and Evans is also way down. There's a distinct era of faster times and Armstrong was part of that era, Evans isn't and I think LOCO's assertion is based on knowledge of this. This time difference was mentioned earlier in the thread as well.
lukesdad
Guest
Can times on climbs ( I like that
) be used as a reliable measure though ? There are a lot of variables, not least tatics on the day. In Armstrongs era there were more contenders with a realistic chance in the GC. A top ten finnish actually meant something. In the present racing 2 or 3 may be have a realistic chance of winning, hence all the looking and marking. Same in Indurain s run. Before that, modern training methods were not in place. You are not comparing like for like. This has also been mentioned earlier, for the life of me I cant remember who by tho' 
I'd say it was exactly the opposite. Armstrong crushed all opposition - nobody else really had a chance at GC. Now, with no single person dominating, it's more open. More authentic too, imo.
I agree. We're all hoping that the reason no-one dominates is hopefuly because they're not juiced up as much. I remember Basso and Scarponi flying to a comfortable Giro stage victory leaving the opposition gasping. It was either an awesome display of strength or a drug-fuelled express train. Either way it was not exciting.
This years Giro was a prime example of anyone with the balls to give it a go, having a chance. Thomas de Gendt was one of the few who did.
I recall reading a report last year showing that Tommy Voeckler's times up a certain climb (AdeH?) were very similar to his times years ago but his placing was much higher due to nobody doing stellar performances and Pantani like times without even getting out of breath.
When Armstrong was in his pomp the betting was similar to Tiger Woods before he started shagging around. 6/4 and 10/1 bar one.
This is an interesting site if you have the time and inclination. Scientists writing as opposed to muppets like us!
This was written during last years tour.
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011_07_01_archive.html
This is their concluding paragraph....
And I readily acknowledge that any one climb in isolation paints a picture of nothing. But I'd point out that this year, there have been three HC climbs that are regularly done in the Tour - Luz Ardiden, Plateau de Beille and Alp d'Huez. Every one of them has been more than 3 minutes slower than the record times for those climbs, all of which were set in the EPO and blood doping era of the 90s and 2000s. The same was true last year, incidentally - not once was an HC climb done at more than 6W/kg, whereas that was common in the 90s and 2000s - 6.4 W/kg was the average back then. Even when you correct for tactics and weather, the number and magnitude of those differences is compelling.
The dividing line, I believe, comes in 2008, when the biological passport was introduced (and please read this for the context). And now, as the Tour rolls out of the mountains again, it has once again suggested to me that a) performances of greater than 6W/kg (let alone the 6.2 to 6.7W/kg we used to see) are not credible and that b) the doping problem, while no doubt present, is coming back under control thanks to the stringent testing. Obviously, this is still a hypothesis - let's get thirty or forty climbs that are slower, not the five or six in the last two years. But so far, the data support the hypothesis, and only time will tell if it's true.
This was written during last years tour.
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011_07_01_archive.html
This is their concluding paragraph....
And I readily acknowledge that any one climb in isolation paints a picture of nothing. But I'd point out that this year, there have been three HC climbs that are regularly done in the Tour - Luz Ardiden, Plateau de Beille and Alp d'Huez. Every one of them has been more than 3 minutes slower than the record times for those climbs, all of which were set in the EPO and blood doping era of the 90s and 2000s. The same was true last year, incidentally - not once was an HC climb done at more than 6W/kg, whereas that was common in the 90s and 2000s - 6.4 W/kg was the average back then. Even when you correct for tactics and weather, the number and magnitude of those differences is compelling.
The dividing line, I believe, comes in 2008, when the biological passport was introduced (and please read this for the context). And now, as the Tour rolls out of the mountains again, it has once again suggested to me that a) performances of greater than 6W/kg (let alone the 6.2 to 6.7W/kg we used to see) are not credible and that b) the doping problem, while no doubt present, is coming back under control thanks to the stringent testing. Obviously, this is still a hypothesis - let's get thirty or forty climbs that are slower, not the five or six in the last two years. But so far, the data support the hypothesis, and only time will tell if it's true.
Andrew_P
In between here and there
I would say there is not a major sport that involves people using their bodies that has not got some sort of drug element within its ranks. Only yesterday I saw a sports person who I would say at some time since 2009 has used some sort of Steroid, it prompted a quick search of Google and I am not the only one who thought it could be the case, strangely the tell tale sign was not the muscle, but more the avoidable side effect.
I think the case was and is a message to LA to stop pro competitive Ironmans and Triathlons, I do think that had he stayed quiet on that front it wouldnot have been re-hashed yet again. Lets face it it is a re-hash with maybe one more hear say witness account.
I also think that he cannot help himself (returning to pro sport) and found it really difficult to retire and not compete, it is as much about having something to train for as it is taking part in the event.
I would really like to think the extra time LA spent on the bike during the 7 TdF wins and the amount of running over the Stages prior to tour is the main reason he won 7 and not drugs. Until there is cast iron evidence I will continue to cling on to this. I do think if they had cast iron and not hearsay it would have been launched straight off the bat to encourge LA to 'fess up. But they have not got cast iron proof
Flying_Monkey
Recyclist
- Location
- Odawa
Thanks, richp - that site is invaluable and it is one of the main sources for my contention earlier that the biological passport had changed things.
I think you have to stop thinking of the USADA case as just being about Armstrong. It isn't, it goes much deeper. It's about systematic doping and the desire to wipe it out. Armstrong is just the king pin, if you will, that needs to be taken out to achieve that goal.
USADA picked up from FDA investigation but with a different focus and a different burden of proof. Read USADA's 15 page letter as a summary of the evidence that the FDA (et al) collected. It's broad. Perhaps the first time that all of the "rehased" evidence has been presented in one official document. The witness testimonies will be key, both in substance and in number - how many voices saying the same thing can you dismiss as "hear say"?
I refer you back to what Christophe Basson's said, what others have said; these charges represent what they have known for 15 years. Whilst previous attempts have been made to prove isolated allegations, they have been just that - isolated. Isolated and therefore relatively easy to defeat when there has been organisations (e.g. UCI) and the omerta closing ranks in silence in defence.
The USADA case has assembled the evidence together in one place (and I'm sure there's more in the wings, yet to come out) and so has amassed the clout the previous attempts lacked. I sincerely hope USADA don't make a mistake procedurally, make sure they get all those i's dotted and t's crossed, because it has to succeed imo. I really do believe that unless the previous endemic culture of doping is outed then it will remain as a lure for future generations.
I'm a fan of the passport, despite the criticisms it has. For my money, it represents an attempt to establish a personalised baseline against which future readings can be compared. I'm sure it can be improved but I do think it's the right direction. It is resource hungry, I expect, in terms of collation and analysis of data (i.e. people needed to do those things) but that can be resolved if there is the will to do so. What it does need, however, is the governing bodies to act on the irregular findings.
- Status
