andydude

My opinion is based on the work of sport scientists which I and many others rate highly. I've never done any medical or scientific reseach myself and I've never said that. I can understand there's so many sub-topics and questions arising from this and I apologise if I can't answer it all, because my believe is based on someone else's work. I'm not sure what you're actually trying to achieve?

Agreed rattle. The problem is you'll never get studies showing something 100% because you can never test 100% of the people and 100% of the variables. You can only get very close. Using your own argument "Some scientific evidence, in absence of sufficient and conclusive evidence is not sufficient in itself." would guide me until further research is done in the sense that I'll trust "some scientific evidence" as done by reputable sport scientists much more than "no scientific evidence" as done by people not even involved in the subject. So for this we'll have to agree to disagree. I think I've said enough, read enough and researched enough to be comfortable in my opinion at the moment, but a mind is nothing if it can't be changed.

Hi JGR. I did some research and it seems they had one of the biggest budgets, if not the biggest. The team budget & Lance CN: What do you say about the figure of $12 million that has been estimated for the team's budget? That would make you the biggest-spending team in the sport, ahead of Telekom and Mapei. MG: That figure is for 2002-4 and it's not far off the mark, so our budget for 2002 is bigger than Telekom's is now. You have to understand that Lance Armstrong commands a substantial salary and that budget includes Lance. I anticipate that Lance's extension of his relationship with the Postal Service and our company will be the largest deal ever for a pro cyclist, and I don't think that's surprising given what he's accomplishing on and off the bike, both competitively and in the value he's bringing for the Postal Service and other sponsors. According to figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, the U.S. Postal Service spent nearly $32 million to sponsor Lance Armstrong's cycling team from 2001 to 2004 and $40 million overall from 1994 to 2004. Sources: http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/interviews/markgorski01.shtml http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Postal_Service_Pro_Cycling_Team http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sports/2013/01/15/Lance-Postal-Team-Money

I included a poll to my original post.

The idea of the thread was to show people why the argument is wrong, because the argument is still being used widely. Then I said we can debate it, but obviously I started with proof/evidence for one side (not my opinion at first - I actually believed the opposite - but based on lots of research by scientists after which my mind was changed). In a debate you bring your own proof, but nobody has been able to do that?

If you make it too wide then you'll never get to an answer. The statement is pretty simple, "does doping level the playing field". It deals with DOPING and not your money and team tactics and your training regime. It's an "add-on" being discussed. In my mind it's a pretty simple statement which was refuted by scientists which had the same understanding to what it's suppose to mean. I don't understand why it's so difficult? The argument has been made that everybody dopes so if everybody dopes then doping doesn't matter which makes the playing field level (specifically about doping) which means all the winners would've won without doping. That argument has been scientifically proven to be incorrect.

Thanks for clearing that up. 1. That's the whole point. It doesn't level the playing field. This thread is only for the "with doping" part. 2. Agreed, hence my post that those are interesting topics for other threads, but this thread is only concentrating on one part, whether doping levels the playing field. 3. Science has proven this line of thinking incorrect. Using what you believe they mean, you don't get the same chance, because it affects everyone differently. Athletes saying they doped to level the playing field/give the same chance are either being willfully ignorant and/or is just trying to defend themselves without any reason or proof. The line is being used by both riders and probably even more by the public/fans.

There are many debates that can come out of this topic, but I wanted to concentrate on the excuse that allowing doping would level the playing field. Most (I want to say all, but haven't read everything yet and never will) points to the fact that doping does not level the playing field, and in reality, makes it even worse. Talking about dna, genetics, upbringing, etc. are other topics which I'm interested in as well.

From an interview regarding his book with Tyler Hamilton: "When everyone can dope, it becomes a contest of who has the best information, who has the best access, who has the best doctor, and who has the most money. That’s what this contest is — it’s a chess game of information, connections and money. And whoever wins that chess game has the better chance of winning the Tour. What happens when you have a situation when there aren’t strong regulations, and people can dope, it’s the opposite of a level field, it’s a hugely distorted playing field, and it’s tilted toward people with access, with information and with money."

Another article: Doping and The Myth of A Level Playing Field http://inrng.com/2012/10/level-playing-field-doping-myth/ ..... At the same time we codify sport with a set of rules. Anti-doping means exist primarily for health but they help level the playing field, or in cycling terms, to equal the gradient or headwind. It is wrong to imagine the results in cycling since EPO emerged in 1989 would be the same if the molecule was never discovered, or that the Tour de France during the last decade would be the same without blood transfusions. Take Bjarne Riis who seemed destined to be a useful helper for Laurent Fignon but was propelled into a Tour de France winner with the plunge of a thousand syringes. But don’t dwell on him as he is just one example amongst many. ...

Haha yeah for fun I picked a sprinter's team, but it's been quite a wild tour so far.

I'm going down faster than Froome on a wet stage

Sorry Swissvan, I think I'm missing your point. What do you mean by levelling the playing field? Should all be equally strong? Do you want a level playing field from a talent, performance, etc. viewpoint?

As far as I know rider A and B with different hemocrit levels might ride at the same level initially. It's not the only factor in performance. Then read the post again where each rider performs % better.

But they won't have the same possibily to gain an advantage because the same drug would have a different effect on everyone? Therefore either levelling the playing field or same possibility to gain an advantage is untrue?

Thank you for that link to Ross' article, Eddy. I couldn't find it. JGR raises another interesting question, but I would prefer to stick to the one question of this topic of whether doping levels the playing field.

As far as I can remember USP came in with a bang and had quite a big budget. Lance wouldn't have it any other way. You can almost compare them to Sky's start a few years ago. That is what I remember, but let me go check the facts later and confirm.

Edit: double post

Which statement and can you give some more information on why you say that?

The science is there. Doping does not equal the playing field. The article was interesting in that it brought in more the money side and basically the team with the most money has the best doctors, etc.

Yes. Then I thought that I hardly know anything about everything, therefore let's debate the actual disagreements and use proof and people in the know.

"They all doped so he's still the best" or "Let's legalise doping and then we'll have a level playing field" I've heard it too many times, and still do. Please read the article for an explanation of why those statements above are wrong. There's some other interesting points too. If you want I can post much more. Let the debate begin! http://www.theguardi...g-field-fallacy Doping, cycling and the 'level playing field' fallacy, by Matt Seaton ..... But this kind of investment is relatively transparent: we can all see how it works plainly enough. And money doesn't buy total dominance. No one expects Bradley Wiggins to win the next six Tours. At the 2012 Tour of Britain, for example, the winner, Jonathan Tiernan-Locke, came not from Team Sky, but the tiny Endura Racing squad, with a fraction of Sky's resources. But if you add money to legalised doping in sport, Goliath will always kill David. We know because we tried this. Legalised doping was effectively where cycling was at when Lance Armstrong won his first Tour de France in 1999. There was no test, then, for EPO, the performance-enhancing drug which had already been poisoning the sport for nearly a decade. ..... Edit: I've added a poll.

Seems Sauser is quite a clean guy. Lots of information on the only truth... I mean internet... Sauser: Constant values on a low level For each of the tested parameters the doping regulations of the sport federations define limits. Not only values that are outside of those limits are indicative for the use of illegal substances, strong fluctuations can also give the testers important clues. Although Christoph Sauser shows slightly increased values for testosterone and ferritine in November, those values are still well within the limits given by the sports federations. In order to avoid or prevent measuring mistakes in the laboratory, there are three measurements for hematocrit and hemoglobin on the same date. The limits for the most important substances are as follows: Hematocrit: 0.42 – 0.52, limit 0.50 (0.42 is 42%) Hemoglobine: 140 – 180 grams/liter blood Testosterone: 8.4 – 28.7 nanomol / liter blood Ferritine (Iron level): 10 –250 Microgramm / liter blood Here are Christoph Sauser's blood values according to the testing of Swiss Olympic Committee: 1st date, 25th November 2002: Hematocrit: 0.416 Hemoglobine: 143 Testosterone: 16.3 Ferritine: 48 2nd date, 25th February 2003 (1st measuring/ 2nd measuring / 3rd measuring): Hematocrit: 0.416/ 0.42/ 0.414 Hemoglobine: 139/ 139/ 139 Testosterone: 8.7 Ferritine: 66 3rd date, 20th May 2003 (1st measuring/ 2nd measuring / 3rd measuring): Hematocrit: 0.404/ 0.403/ 0.407 Hemoglobine: 135/ 136/ 137 Testosterone: 5.4 Ferritine: 66 4th date, 27th August 2003 (1st measuring/ 2nd measuring / 3rd measuring): Hematocrit: 0.404/ 0.408/ 0.405 Hemoglobine: 132/ 132/ 132 Testosterone: 5.2 Ferritine: 63 5th date, 17th November 2003 (1st measuring/ 2nd measuring / 3rd measuring): Hematocrit: 0.389/ 0.387/ 0.391 Hemoglobine: 131/ 131/ 131 Testosterone: 20.5 Ferritine: 75 6th date, 5th March 2004 (1st measuring/ 2nd measuring / 3rd measuring): Hematocrit: 0.405/ 0.408/ 0.408 Hemoglobine: 138/ 138/ 139 Testosterone: 9 Ferritine: 49 7th Date, 11th May 2004 (1st measuring/ 2nd measuring / 3rd measuring): Hematocrit: 0.392/ 0.392/ 0.393 Hemoglobine: 132/ 132/ 132 Testosterone: 7.6 Ferritine: 43

This thread is losing steam. Can anybody post some twitter feeds? There must be some serious hangbag slinging. (Twitter is blocked at my work.)

Haha ok since you've had enhancements done, can I calve implants so that I at least look like a cyclist?