Phil Liggett says Lance Armstrong did not need to cheat to win

[bigbill]

I like Phil's commentary. I was in the garage yesterday looking for my suitcase of courage when the elastic snapped.

[tomato coupe]

Originally Posted by tctyres

The issue is, "What's his ability at full time?" which I was trying to drive at with the 1993 race. The doping allows him extra time for his full time power and additional high-level thought processes. Everyone is cooked after 5 hours racing in the lead pack. If someone can make one or two extra decisions that are advantageous in the final 10 km, the odds are in their favor.

The advantage of doping is that it improves your high-level thought processes, and you make better tactical decisions in a race?

[tctyres]

Originally Posted by tomato coupe

The advantage of doping is that it improves your high-level thought processes, and you make better tactical decisions in a race?

One of them, yes --> oxygen from the lungs to the rest of the body. The brain relies on oxygen to process environmental information.

[tomato coupe]

Originally Posted by tctyres

One of them, yes --> oxygen to muscles. The brain is a muscle.

The brain is not a muscle.

[tctyres]

Originally Posted by tomato coupe

The brain is not a muscle.

Sure. I was thinking it was smooth muscle, similar to the other organs, but it's actually nerve cells. The secondary point that doping enhances oxygen transmission and use in the body is true, however.

Produced naturally by the kidneys, EPO is also available as a pharmaceutical. EPO stimulates the production of red blood cells in bone marrow and regulates the concentration of red blood cells and haemoglobin in the blood. This is useful for athletes, since red blood cells shuttle oxygen to the cells, including muscle cells, enabling them to operate more effectively.

https://www.science.org.au/curious/p...hropoietin-epo

[FlashUNC]

Ah yes, Michele Ferrari's infamous "we'll make their brains work better at the end of races" doping regimen.

That's how Argentin, Furlan and Berzin rode away from everyone the 1994 Fleche Wallone as the Gewiss trio, 70k from the finish. More brain power.

[tctyres]

Originally Posted by FlashUNC

Ah yes, Michele Ferrari's infamous "we'll make their brains work better at the end of races" doping regimen.

That's how Argentin, Furlan and Berzin rode away from everyone the 1994 Fleche Wallone as the Gewiss trio, 70k from the finish. More brain power.

Well, I understand your point, but I think of it as one of the effects of "not bonking." A racer is capable of racing the last hour like the first hour: fresh. The decisions are easier. The muscles are stronger. They go hand in hand. They aren't exclusive of one another.

[Stj]

Originally Posted by benb

Please.. there's no responsible/scientific research that shows some riders will respond better to illegal PED programs than others and that the rampant PED use tilted the playing field towards some dopers vs others.

No one is going to run that study in a responsible way.. if you did it in a lot of countries the researchers could end up in jail.

Rogue doctors working for pro sports teams running fly by night programs doesn't make it scientific research.

Most of these teams/riders had spotty access to their drugs and made mistakes and all kinds of other issues.

And actual racing has way too many confounding variables to ever be used as proof of the drugs helping one rider/team more than another.

Just want to respectfully add a different perspective here. I have seen studies when it comes to testosterone and muscle growth that do point to there being a distributional response. This isn't EPO but think its relevant. Most people will have the average results with some low responders and some high responders. I tried digging it up but can't find the exact study, if I locate I will send along (it was focused purely on individual response to testosterone injections so it seems very relevant here).

I do think that cyclists are probably much more alike than they are different (so they're probably all in the tail) but would still think there would be different response rates to PED compounds all else equal.

I am not sure what to think when it comes to Lance, just wanted to give a different perspective when it comes to PEDs. I do wish there was an all natural cycling race/tour (would have to be much less tough though).

[mg2ride]

Love me some Lance and his sense of humor!

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by Stj

Just want to respectfully add a different perspective here. I have seen studies when it comes to testosterone and muscle growth that do point to there being a distributional response. This isn't EPO but think its relevant. Most people will have the average results with some low responders and some high responders. I tried digging it up but can't find the exact study, if I locate I will send along (it was focused purely on individual response to testosterone injections so it seems very relevant here).

I do think that cyclists are probably much more alike than they are different (so they're probably all in the tail) but would still think there would be different response rates to PED compounds all else equal.

I am not sure what to think when it comes to Lance, just wanted to give a different perspective when it comes to PEDs. I do wish there was an all natural cycling race/tour (would have to be much less tough though).

In terms of differing affects of EPO on athletes, I think we can say this was clearly the case in the Armstrong era. Since there was no test for EPO, a hematocrit limit of 50% was imposed. That means that athletes with naturally lower hematocrits had a higher limit for the amount of blood boosting they could do and stay below the limit.

[tomato coupe]

Originally Posted by mg2ride

Love me some Lance and his sense of humor!

I'd say Geraint Thomas probably gets the last laugh.

[FlashUNC]

Originally Posted by mg2ride

Love me some Lance and his sense of humor!

So self-aggrandizement counts as humor now.

Guy never misses a moment to tell the world how great he is.

[Stj]

I’ve always wondered about this, and it’s been nagging me since I saw it. Motors in cycling. Specifically Lance and team sky.

I watched the 60 minutes piece on motors in cycling. And they bring up these two topics.

Does anyone have an opinion on if it was possible in 1999 and a few years after? I know it wouldn’t have been the 200 watts for an hour that’s available now (in a hidden form factor). I would think that if you could get 50-100 watts for maybe 30mins and we’re already in pro shape you could probably win a tour with that technology. I found links to lithium 18650 cells being available in 1999 (I think they were used in laptops at the time). And it seems the motor technology was there. I think if you had that technology you would save it for super loud stages (so you would probably use it on climbs and possibly TT stages where you were largely alone).

Anybody see the piece and has thoughts on this? It’s impossible to prove at this point but am curious when cyclists potentially started using them. I hope I’m not offending anyone’s view of Lance, just am really curious myself about this topic having watched the piece. I don’t know enough to really feel strongly about it.

I do kind off feel for the UCI in that they constantly have to be aware of the cutting edge In not just pharmacology but then also technological cheating and then develop methods to actually catch these guys. But then again it’s a massive business, you hire the right people.

[Elefantino]

Originally Posted by flashunc

so self-aggrandizement counts as humor now.

Guy never misses a moment to tell the world what a d*ck he is.

fify

[Tony T]

Originally Posted by FlashUNC

So self-aggrandizement counts as humor now.

Guy never misses a moment to tell the world how great he is.

2+ year old tweet