I was just reading an old article on Lance...
The next day was more typical: five hours over rolling terrain, with a heart rate of about a hundred and fifty-five beats a minute and an average effort of three hundred and twenty watts.
What? 325 avg for FIVE hours...
Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/07/15/020715fa_fact1#ixzz2IF6uHJ67
Berzin, to add to your last post, consider that not only was HE on a high quality PED program, his entire support team was also on that same high quality PED program (probably better than most of his competitors) and he had the luxury of sitting in a low effort draft from them thru the majority of races, until the roads turned uphill, then he was extremely fresh, AND juiced to boot. Tough combination to beat....
Rnddude-you bring up a great point. There was a French cycling magazine that posted a lengthy article on one of Armstrong's earlier Tour wins, and the reporter who wrote the piece ascertained that, outside of the individual time trials, Lance spent a total of 23 whole kilometers at the front without a teammate pacing him on the front.
I've been watching Armstrong's Tours lately, and funny that during some Tours Armstrong's teammates had a tendency to disappear, leaving him all by himself during key stretches of the race. this happened more than once, and more often as his fraudulent Tour victories piled on.
So there seems to be times when you are correct, but other times where it seems as if the really good sauce he kept to himself.
I surmise they disappeared late in the race because up till then they had done the bulk of the work, not only riding tempo for him, but fetching food and water, covering breaks, etc.
"high cadence is definitely fueled by PEDs"
I think Berzin is actually on the right track on this point.
Assume a constant power level climbing up a hill:
Higher cadence = less pedal force = more slow twitch muscle = more aerobically fueled = more oxygen dependent = technique responds better to blood oxygen doping
Lower Cadence = more pedal force = more fast twitch muscle = more anaerobically fueled = less oxygen dependent = technique is more reliant on blood glucose,glycogen,ATP,creatine levels and produces more lactic acid = technique doesn't respond as well to blood oxygen doping.
Couldn't the difference be a composite of several things? Couldn't the doping have been better or more expertly designed, at the same time at which his upper body mass declined (which I would certainly concur is evident both in photography and in my moments of up-close scrutiny), at the same time which his training became oriented for long climbs, at the same time at which he requisitioned a Grand Tour team to work on his GC behalf, at the same time at which he learned to produce raceable power at higher RPM?
Think what you will, he had before his illness a history of figuring out how to get what he wanted and, apparently, the apposite psychological deficiencies (or complexities, if I were to be politic about it) to drive himself to do so. I'm in the possibly unique category of more or less equally admiring and reviling the lad. I think that he really was the best prepared rider of his generation; but also that he managed through ingenuity and almost unbearable cynicism to tip the odds in his favor. No one else could have done what he did. Unfortunately that statement cuts both ways.
exactly right PlanB on your second paragraph. His destroying people who got in his way is the problem. He lived by the sword and will die by the sword. Like Inferno7 said somewhere earlier in another discussion, its the everything else...` Lying and cheating is one thing, but personal attacks and destroying people along the way is another.
Berzin;
If you know people who dope, please do them a favor and turn them in to the police/sporting authorities.
Thanks in advance,
Flicker
+ flicker, After watching this all unravel, I would really like to know why the world isn't asking Oprah if she didn't take banned substances in he "illustrous" career? I bet she smoked some weed a least. But this stuff never comes out. The interviewer is never the subject.
SOL: "The interviewer is never the subject."
yeah, that is the way it works SOL. people didn't tune in to hear about oprah's alleged pot habit.
SOL...saywhatnow? What does Oprah's background (she has admitted to doing cocaine, amongst other things, btw) have to do with ANYTHING? The interviewer is never the subject because, and I will slow this down for you...
THEY.
ARE.
NOT.
THE.
SUBJECT.
That is how the interviewer/subject thing works.
For me, SOL = Shht Outta Luck
So is Lance.
+1 Yo Mike
Also, SOL=Same Old Lance
Plan B: " No one else could have done what he did. Unfortunately that statement cuts both ways."
Yes it does cut both ways.
But in terms of tour wins, I think Indurain would have gone on to win at least six tours if he didn't have his first baby when he did. My wife and I were both huge Indurain fans, and I remember how happy she was when she heard he had a baby. But I said to her at the time, yes but it means he won't win the tour this year. His personality was such that he wouldn't neglect his marriage or his kid.
Like Lance he also totally dominated but unlike Lance was very generous to everyone around him and was universally loved by everyone (except those who thought he made the tour boring. His personality was the complete opposite of Lance's, yet no one could touch him. Of course I don't think for a second that he could have won any tours without EPO, but he did dominate his era without being the least bit of a jerk.
Realized Indu must have doped a long long time ago but I still feel a bit sad about it. Guess that how a lot of Lance fans feel.
You must log in to post.
