OK, serious LA question.....(was this part of the myth correct?)

  1. Berzin

    offline
    Member

    The higher cadence doesn't work without the drugs to fuel the horsepower.

    And as for horsepower, Armstrong did not have a 12-cylinder engine. He was good enough to make a living as a professional rider, but nowhere near the talent to win one Tour let alone seven. Not without PEDs.

    Cosmic Kid, I hope you are not conjecturing that Armstrong was somehow much more gifted as an athlete than his peers, therefore the doping simply makes it a wash.

    He was talented and had ability, but those stripped wins don't happen without the dope. The regimen was extreme and very expensive-how many riders had the resources to afford what he was doing? Very few.

    This is the delusion of many amateur riders I know who take PEDs. They think they are not cheating, but that the PEDs are somehow magically unlocking their true potential, a very little talked-about side-effect of riders who win races while doped.

    Posted 4 months ago
  2. AluminumFrog

    offline
    Member

    Berzin, just curious. Who without dope would have beaten him for sure?

    Posted 4 months ago
  3. cerv

    offline
    Member

    At the end of the day, noone really knows whether or not he would have won in a clean field. Some have convinced themselves he would win anyway. Some have convinced themselves his drug program gave him more of an advantage.
    It's all speculation.

    Posted 4 months ago
  4. 7tdf-SpearofLance

    offline
    Member

    + Aluminumfrog This is not about Lance, first off. But if you look at 99% of all the sporting scandals of all time they are all the same. In each instants both sides had access to the same techniques and subterfuges. In the 1980s it was the East German swimmers and in the 1990s it was the Chinese. In every instants the USA had better technology but refused to deploy. The bottom line is that other countries went to different lengths to win, some went to greater lengths than others. The ones that went to the greatest lengths reaped the greatest rewards and delivered an excellent product to the networks sponsors and fans. If it turns out Lance accessed the system in full force, it was a level playing field, others could have done the same. And I call BS on the lack of money thing. If the dream is great enough the means are there. If you really wanted it bad enough you could find the bucks, the cities are filled with junkies who always find their fix. If they can do, so can anyone. There is very low motivation in that crowd. And please don't flame me for belittling addicts.

    Posted 4 months ago
  5. ibex

    offline
    Member

    " And please don't flame me for belittling addicts."

    We won't, we will flame you for being an idiot

    Posted 4 months ago
  6. Scott SoCal

    offline
    Member

    You can't just go by photos. The weight loss thing, like the size of his heart thing, like the "he doesn't make lactic acid" thing are all garbage.

    Posted 4 months ago
  7. Entheo

    offline
    Member

    AF: Berzin, just curious. Who without dope would have beaten him for sure?
    cerv: It's all speculation.

    cerv is absolutely correct; you can't discuss this as tho this is not a team sport. on a truly level playing field, where no one was doping, it's anyone's guess. let's not forget that going into the '99 tour presumptions were that doping was greatly reduced post-festina affair, and no one gave postal/armstrong a snowball's chance in hell of holding yellow in paris, at least until they saw some alien performances by the team & LA.

    one thing seems clear to me -- french teams that heeded stronger doping policies post-festina had terrible results, and were made fun of. more victimless victims, right?

    Posted 4 months ago
  8. Cosmic Kid

    offline
    Member

    Cosmic Kid, I hope you are not conjecturing that Armstrong was somehow much more gifted as an athlete than his peers, therefore the doping simply makes it a wash.

    I'm not conjecturing anything, I'm asking what caused the transformation. For years, people have said "it was the dope. No way a classics rider can become a GT rider w/o dope." But we now know (confirmed through multiple sources) that LA was doping (inlcuding EPO) pre-cancer. So it wasn't "just the drugs."

    This is simply a question...what caused the transformation? I'm not inferring, speculating, defending nor criticizing. Just asking the question given recent revelations.

    Just say "NO!!" to WCP!

    "Want to get faster? Work harder, eat better, cut the crap. Instead of talking the talk, work the work"
    Posted 4 months ago
  9. Cosmic Kid

    offline
    Member

    The higher cadence doesn't work without the drugs to fuel the horsepower.

    No, it doesn't work that way. Cadence is an input for wattage ( the output). Increase cadence, decrease force and keep the same wattage. Increase cadence and keep same force = increased watts.

    You don't magically get more "horsepower" for any cadence, drugs or no. It takes a certain amount of watts to maintain a given gear at a given cadence. That wattage does not change based on fitness or doping regimen. If it takes 250 watts to ride in a 53x18 at 85 rpm, it will always be the same. The variable will be your HR / cardiac stress.

    Posted 4 months ago
  10. Yo Mike

    offline
    Member

    the LA myth is ON SALE, from CK's favorite supplier:

    http://www.worldcycling.com/LANCE-ARMSTRONG-DVDs/products/593/

    Posted 4 months ago
  11. Entheo

    offline
    Member

    ^^ polish, flicker and SOL should stock up! ^^

    Posted 4 months ago
  12. laurentja

    offline
    Member

    Lean muscle increased, lost upper body muscle that was along for the ride, blood doping... and had DESIRE that can only come from having a life/career-threatening injury. Seems to add up to a major transformation.

    Posted 4 months ago
  13. wiloughby

    offline
    Member

    Hello,

    I enjoy reading everyone's posts on this forum and I see everyone here as intelligent with enlightened opinions. I dont' post that often but sometimes I like to chime in. This discussion is all very interesting. I think one of the main ways he was able to transform is that, pre-cancer, he didn't focus on the GT's. He thought of himself as a one day rider and a rider capable of winning shorter stage races, i.e. the Tour Dupont. Post cancer and his famous post Paris-Nice trip to Boone, NC in '98 must have caused him to think, "do I really want to get back into this?" Maybe he felt like do I really want to get back into this sport. Plus he prebably felt that he needed to win and be among the best which meant he had to get back on the doping program or get top ten placings. Somehow, that time in Boone made him realize that this is it, I have to make it work. One of the main things that struck me is what Tyler said in his book, that Ferrari was very adamant about riders watching their weight and what they eat. I find it hard to believe that he also didn't do that with Lance. He must have had him lose weight to increase his strength to weight ratio. That had to have been at least part of the formula that transformed him into a Tour winner. That and a regimen of drugs and methods structured for him to perform specifically at the Tour. Maybe in '95 he wasn't on a regimen designed for him to perform well over the full three weeks. In '99 the whole regimen and training before and during the Tour were geared for him to win, e.g. when to receive doses of EPO, cortisone, testosterone, etc. for recovery, etc. It was more strategic so that he was riding at optimum levels throughout the race. I don't know. I just thought I'd throw my speculation in with everyone else's ideas.

    Posted 4 months ago
  14. rnddude

    offline
    Member

    wiloughby, welcome to the discussion. However, I must take exception to your first sentence:

    "I enjoy reading everyone's posts on this forum and I see everyone here as intelligent with enlightened opinions."

    I wish that were true, but.....

    "To be free and to live a free life - that is the most beautiful thing there is."
    Miguel Indurain
    Posted 4 months ago
  15. stronz

    offline
    Member

    SOL thanks for that post -- instant fun

    Posted 4 months ago
  16. Entheo

    offline
    Member

    r&d: wiloughby, welcome to the discussion. However, I must take exception to your first sentence: "I enjoy reading everyone's posts on this forum and I see everyone here as intelligent with enlightened opinions." I wish that were true, but.....

    maybe this is why some of us don't get it...

    Posted 4 months ago
  17. Sustanon

    offline
    Member

    Once again, sorry to keep on bringing up Rijs, but he is a prime example of what an effective doping regimen can do for a mediocre middle of the pack cyclist. LA has way more talent and natural ability than Rijs, so combine that with a well crafted doping program, a competitive mindset, a lot of money, and you've got the answer. If you want to know how big of a difference doping can make then go back and look at Floyd's miraculous comeback stage where he rode like a man possessed right after a day when he nearly cracked in the high mountains. I'm talking overnight! Drugs make you feel better, perform better, sleep better, concentrate better. Choose the one you want.

    Posted 4 months ago
  18. Cosmic Kid

    offline
    Member

    Sustanon, you keep bringing up a poor analogy. Riis went form being a domestique to GT winner because he started doping with EPO. As noted many times now, Armstrong was already doping with EPO pre-cancer.

    I'm not certain I'm buying the "he was on a 'classics' doping program" pre-cancer, simply because it implies that anyone can become a GT contender. I must have missed the Tours where Johan Musseuw was battling for the GC.

    Posted 4 months ago
  19. wiloughby

    offline
    Member

    You're right. Michele Bartoli who most likely was on EPO also said one year ('99) that he was going to focus on a Grand Tour to see what he could do and he couldn't do anything.

    Posted 4 months ago
  20. abrickinthewall

    offline
    Member

    It wasn't that long ago Bjarne was touting Fabian Cancellara as a TdF GC rider. Maybe he intended to put FC on the "Lance" program.

    Posted 4 months ago
  21. gobuck

    offline
    Member

    Riss was using epo before he won the tour.

    from wikipedia:

    When Fignon retired in 1992, Bjarne Riis contacted fellow Danish rider Rolf Sørensen, who got him a job as a rider for Italian team Ariostea under sporting director Giancarlo Ferretti. Riis placed first in the Châlon-sur-Marne stage during the 1993 Tour de France and also wore the polka dot jersey for a day.[7] He finished 5th place overall, which was the best Danish result in Tour history at the time, bettering former World Champion Leif Mortensen's 6th place finish in the 1971 Tour de France. Riis was ill during the 1994 Tour de France but went on a break-away and then racing solo for the last 30 km of the day. With the sprinter teams chasing him, he placed first on the stage by just a few seconds. Riis finished 3rd at the 1995 Tour de France, the first Dane to reach the podium in Paris, and was named the sensation of the 1995 Tour.[8]

    Posted 4 months ago
  22. Cosmic Kid

    offline
    Member

    I think you just proved my point gobuck....when did Riis suddenly show up as a GC contender? 1993. When did he start doping? 1993.

    When did Armstrong start doping? some point in the mid-90's (exact date TBD at this point), but clearly pre-cancer. When did he emerge as a GC contender? 1998, post-cancer.

    Riis emerged immediately as a GC contender once he got on dope. Armstrong was a different story.

    Posted 4 months ago
  23. Sustanon

    offline
    Member

    wiloughby......Bartoli wasn't fat enough like Lance to win the Tour. He would probably be all skin and bones by the time he biked into Paris.

    Cosmic....Rijs didn't win the Tour until he reached the coveted "Mr 60%" status.

    Posted 4 months ago
  24. Cosmic Kid

    offline
    Member

    OK, I said GT winner when I should have written GT contender. The point is that his transformation was, for all intents and purposes, immediate. he shocks everyone in the 93 Tour, wins a stage and finishes 5th out of nowhere. the same year he started using EPO.

    You can't say the same thing about Lance.

    Posted 4 months ago
  25. Berzin

    offline
    Member

    Cosmic Kid, high cadence is definitely fueled by PEDs. With more and better quality gas in the tank, the faster a doped rider can and will ride, attack with more strength, and be able to stay away. How could this not be true?

    Attacking on the last mountain when all of your opponents are tiring, what enabled Armstrong to accomplish this feat of having more energy and strength when his rivals failed to reel him in? The higher cadence? No, the dope, which enabled the higher cadence when others could not keep up.

    Because Armstrong was taking EPO pre-cancer and wasn't a feature Tour rider doesn't mean the EPO wasn't working. It was down to the type program he was on and what type of races Armstrong was targeting, like I've stated in a previous post. Pre-cancer he was a Classics and week-long stage rider, so the doping regimen was different. It had to have been.

    Post-cancer, he decided the Tour was going to be his main focus after his success in the 1998 Vuelta, where he came in fourth. He signed a non-compete clause with Dr. Ferrari shortly afterwards, and the rest is history.

    That contract was the most expensive between a rider and a trainer in the pro peloton. What did it purchase?

    We don't know the answer to that yet in its' totality. Whatever changes Ferrari made to Armstrong's doping regimen worked like a charm, but as we are seeing now, the web of deceit was so tangled there was no way Armstrong could lose.

    I'll throw this in. I don't believe in his awe-inspiring physical gifts. I think he was a rider with pedestrian talents (in comparison to his peers, not to everyday ham-and-eggers) who used doping and the manipulation of the system via his relationship with the UCI to make the playing field as unlevel as I've ever seen it in sport aside from what the East Germans were doing in the 1970's.

    The only thing I'll admit to is it seems he responded better to a drug regimen than his peers, not only because it enabled him to win the Tour seven times, but because it turned him into a rider he was never meant to be.

    The truth will out one day, we just have to be patient.

    Posted 4 months ago

Reply »

You must log in to post.