Late to the party, but this thought occurred to me too, that LA may have had the most responsive physiology to the dope. It's an alternate view to, everyone doped so it's just a higher but level playing field.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgates66
Snip
BTW, it is worth considering that Lance's dominance was due not so much to an exceptional doping regimen, but genetic predisposition to respond to doping. That's my belief, anyway. Plenty of guys were taking the same stuff and not getting the same results. The order of the peloton without drugs during that era may well have been radically different, with Lance as a super-domestique and some natural talent that didn't respond to drugs a super-star. It's interesting to think about! Genetics matter in more way than one!
What the early-'70s and earlier guys were doing in cycling - uppers I guess mostly - are in a totally different category.
|
08-17-2020, 10:12 AM
Linear Mode
