HappyMartin Posted November 13, 2012 Share Haters and fans aside I always remember his come back tour. That stage when they were riding along the coast. I think it was HTC saw the change in road direction coming and went to the front and upped the pace. As the road did a turn away from the coast the wind came from the side and everyone was guttered. Peleton was torn to shreds but LA saw it coming and was in the break with HTC. AC who is no slouch tactically lost around 5 minutes if I remember correctly. Yep, he is not a nice guy and he doped to the gills but he did a lot of other stuff right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky Luke. Posted November 13, 2012 Share Maybe not but its not like LA was the only one with access to Ferrari. You pays your money and spend your time - you gets your advantage. Its no different to the science of training, recovery, equipment etc. None of those are a level playing field in the sense that each guy / team works hard as hell to tilt the field in their own favour. Lance beat the okes fair and square by outbidding them in the UCI donations stakes as well. He also out-squealed them when it came to calling in some positive tests for the competition. Obviously the rest of the contenders just didn't have what it took to be a true champion. Andrew Steer, krl747, eddy and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted November 13, 2012 Share Fignon won the wooden spoon on more than 1 occasion I think. Funny he came across as such a nice guy in his book He did indeed. His mention of doping - his and others - is matter of fact. But, then the end of the "Golden Age" came. His aversion to blood manipulation is well handled in the book. That manipulation is what changed the sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squier Posted November 13, 2012 Share Guys, can we get one thing straight, that the guys were all doping most certainly does not equal a level playing field. Science. Yes, you could take testosterone for recovery and more, but the main variable for a grand tour rider was hematocrit. Even when epo was undetectable you could only take your hematocrit to 50. Hamilton said it; you need threed things to compete in the Tour:1. you need to be very fit.2. you need to very lean3. you need a high hematocrit points 1 and 2 are within your control, but point 3 is limited to 50% for everyone. Though I won't go as far as calling it a level playing field, getting the edge over your competition had more to do with points 1 and 2 than your doping techniques. Edited November 13, 2012 by Squier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Omega Man Posted November 13, 2012 Share Yes, you could take testosterone for recovery and more, but the main variable for a grand tour rider was hematocrit. Even when epo was undetectable you could only take your hematocrit to 50. Hamilton said it; you need threed things to compete in the Tour:1. you need to be very fit.2. you need to very lean3. you need a high hematocrit points 1 and 2 are within your control, but point 3 is limited to 50% for everyone. Though I won't go as far as calling it a level playing field, getting the edge over your competition had more to do with points 1 and 2 than your doping techniques. On point 3. In Hamiltons book he basically said that if you have a low natural starting point (like him with a 42) you will derive more of a benefit from the use of EPO because of the higher percentage diff between the 42 and the 50 where someone who has a higher natural starting point will derive far less of a benefit. So the playing field is deff not level from a biological point of view IMO. But then again sprinters have higher natural levels of testosterone and adrenalin junkies have lower endorphin levels etc etc etc. Edited November 13, 2012 by Omega Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickc Posted November 14, 2012 Share http://d1x60095yl7hhg.cloudfront.net/potd_9664411.jpg http://i513.photobucket.com/albums/t338/sittingbison/couchpotato.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dracs Posted November 14, 2012 Share Lance beat the okes fair and square by outbidding them in the UCI donations stakes as well. He also out-squealed them when it came to calling in some positive tests for the competition. Obviously the rest of the contenders just didn't have what it took to be a true champion.Oh cry me a river. In discussion was whether the doping playing fields are really skewed - i.e was LA's doping program somehow superior to everyone else's. My point is LA took the same approach to this as he did everything else that went into winning the tour. At the end of the day its possible that he integrated whatever he was on with the rest of his program in a better way than most - but there is nothing that has come out that suggests the doping he did is fundamentally different to that done by most of the peloton - yet we keep hearing from some that he was some how the uber doper... Its getting so old. Edited November 14, 2012 by dracs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky Luke. Posted November 14, 2012 Share Oh cry me a river. In discussion was whether the doping playing fields are really skewed - i.e was LA's doping program somehow superior to everyone else's. My point is LA took the same approach to this as he did everything else that went into winning the tour. At the end of the day its possible that he integrated whatever he was on with the rest of his program in a better way than most - but there is nothing that has come out that suggests the doping he did is fundamentally different to that done by most of the peloton - yet we keep hearing from some that he was some how the uber doper... Its getting so old. Call me what you like but when you have immunity from positive tests this seems to me like it would affect the profile of this 'playing field' others keep bringing up. For me when there's organised big budget doping there is no playing field. Seems obvious really but there you go. As for mentions of 'strategy' earlier, I have to call BS on this too. Postal went from grade A losers at the Tour to the strongest team in one year. The strategy only changed when they had the firepower to back it up. Easy to say 'guys, lets smash it at the front all day and the climbers can sprint up Alpe d'Huez' when you have the legs to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky Luke. Posted November 14, 2012 Share On point 3. In Hamiltons book he basically said that if you have a low natural starting point (like him with a 42) you will derive more of a benefit from the use of EPO because of the higher percentage diff between the 42 and the 50 where someone who has a higher natural starting point will derive far less of a benefit. So the playing field is deff not level from a biological point of view IMO. But then again sprinters have higher natural levels of testosterone and adrenalin junkies have lower endorphin levels etc etc etc. Absolutely, your natural starting point affects how much of a gain you get by boosting to 50. Then, lets consider maintaining that level during a grand tour. Boosting with EPO became microdosing after 2000, and at that point blood doping was the main strategy for boosting the red blood cell count. This dramatically increases the personal health risk for a rider who does not have the budget to pay for a highly competent medical team. At this point there are new logistics - lots of them. How much fresh blood can you bank? Does it stay fresh until you need it? Will your team manager give you early warnings about tests? Is there a doctor on hand with saline solution to lower your hct? How willing are you to risk being caught? Can you call in favours should you test positive?.. all this stuff starts to define your program. There is nothing impressive to learn here in regard to 'strategy' and 'scientific innovation'. Edited November 14, 2012 by Lucky Luke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted November 14, 2012 Share The "Troll"has a new book on the way: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/david-walsh-to-release-armstrong-book-seven-deadly-sinsDavid Walsh, the author of "From Lance to Landis" and "LA Confidential" will release a third book titled "Seven Deadly Sins" to be published on 13 December. Simon & Schuster won worldwide rights to produce the story of Walsh's "working life" that involved attempting to expose Lance Armstrong's alleged doping practices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcza Posted November 14, 2012 Share The "Troll"has a new book on the way: http://www.cyclingne...ven-deadly-sins David Walsh, the author of "From Lance to Landis" and "LA Confidential" will release a third book titled "Seven Deadly Sins" to be published on 13 December. Simon & Schuster won worldwide rights to produce the story of Walsh's "working life" that involved attempting to expose Lance Armstrong's alleged doping practices. Can't see what will be new - unless Bruyneel & Ferrari starts singing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Omega Man Posted November 14, 2012 Share Absolutely, your natural starting point affects how much of a gain you get by boosting to 50. There is nothing impressive to learn here in regard to 'strategy' and 'scientific innovation'.Heh? I never mentioned 'strategy' and 'scientific innovation'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky Luke. Posted November 14, 2012 Share Heh? I never mentioned 'strategy' and 'scientific innovation'. Sure, it was mentioned a few times some pages back, I didn't mean to point the finger at you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky Luke. Posted November 14, 2012 Share Can't see what will be new - unless Bruyneel & Ferrari starts singing Bruyneel's case is still up for arbitration as far as I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted November 14, 2012 Share Can't see what will be new - unless Bruyneel & Ferrari starts singing It'll be a good read because it'll take in Walsh's work over the years. Bruyneel's case is still up for arbitration as far as I know. Supposed to be this month. I reckon they'd hold off on printing to get that in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaco-fiets Posted November 14, 2012 Share Oh cry me a river. In discussion was whether the doping playing fields are really skewed - i.e was LA's doping program somehow superior to everyone else's. My point is LA took the same approach to this as he did everything else that went into winning the tour. At the end of the day its possible that he integrated whatever he was on with the rest of his program in a better way than most - but there is nothing that has come out that suggests the doping he did is fundamentally different to that done by most of the peloton - yet we keep hearing from some that he was some how the uber doper... Its getting so old. I agree with you! Doping is doping. If Lance had a better system and more means to dope in a more scientific way it surely does not make him more guilty than the dick on another team who can only afford half of Lance's EPO. If you are a cheat then you are a cheat. The more clever cheat should not take the fall for the less clever cheat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now