No, what I’m saying is you have a bunch of handwaving. Nothing “points to doping” in the whole mess, it just fails to exclude doping which isn’t remotely the same thing.
Could LA be doping? Sure, I have no problems with that possiblity. Is there any clear evidence that points to him doping? No, I haven’t seen anything that would support a doping charge other than the fact that he’s currently better than anyone else on a bike.
The OJ Simpson comparison is a great analogy.
You think he’s guilty? Prove it.
He was never proven guilty in a court of law.
Was his blood at the scene? Yup. Was the victim’s blood in his truck and his house? Yup. Did he leave the town with disguises and his passport? Yup. Were his footprints in the blood at the scene of the crime? Yup. Did he have a motive? Yup. Did he have an alibi? Nope.
Was he guilty? Not in my mind. Not until I see a positive conviction.
Given that we KNOW other athletes in the Peloton dope, why do people think it is that none of them can ride with LA? Because his own personal make-up is so far beyond others that even other world class athletes and top-level cyclists who are using dope can’t catch him?
Given that we know that other people dope who have never tested positive, people can’t even consider the possibility that LA might dope because he’s never had a positive test?
Can we ban Lance or take away his wins without a positive test? Not in the least.
Is he doping? Come on. . .of course he is.
Yeah, if you take away the mounds of physical evidence and replace it with hearsay and assumptions. It’s nothing like the OJ case in the slightest. Plus, OJ has been found “responsible” in a lower court, with a lower standard of proof (as I understand it). It’s hard to see any court with more evidential rigour than “well, we’re reeeal suspicious, like” finding Armstrong guilty of anything. Unless it’s presided over by Princhester and threemae, I guess, for whom even negative tests now seem to have positive evidentiary value.
No-one has said this. Most of the people defending Armstrong have said that they wouldn’t be surprised if he were doping. I don’t even have a problem with strong suspicion, and will freely agree that with the general atmosphere around cycling these days, such suspicion is not misplaced (although its specific aim at just one rider is perhaps unfair). I am, however, objecting to the assertion as fact that he is doping. It’s not remotely that clear.
While not wanting to inject actual facts into this thread, someone said in threemae’s other thread that Millar tested several times with elevated haematocrit levels, and that Armstrong never has. Can anyone confirm this? Haematocrit levels aren’t enough to cause a positive test on their own, but they are direct indicators of the effects of EPO. Since the effects of an EPO course apparently last for several months, it would seem hard for Armstrong to have been doping for six years and never even shown signs of an effect, let alone presence of the drug itself.
There’s a damn lot of things indicating OJ did it.
There’s a damn lot of things indicating Lance dopes.
No one actually saw OJ stick a knife in anyone. No one has actually claimed to have injuected LA with a banned substance.
And, neither one has ever been actually convicted of it.
As far as I’m concerned, they’re equivalent.
If there were a “lower court” where Lance would be tried, and the burden of proof was “reasonable suspicion”(*) not “beyond reasonable doubt”, he’d be convicted too.
I suspect most of you believe he dopes and are just exhibiting some kind of pedantry mixed with stubborness.
(*) IIRC, “reasonable suspicion” was the burden for the prosecution in the civil trial. If not, “reasonable suspicion” it was something that resonates similarly in my memory.
The burden of proof in a civil trial in the U.S. is a preponderance of the evidence. IMO, that burden was easily met in OJ’s civil trial, but nothing I’ve heard so far about LA would lead me to rule against him in a civil trial on the doping issue.
No, there’s a general perception that doping is endemic, one circumstantial accusation in a sensationalist book, and a bunch of assumptions by past winners that no-one could win these days without being doped. None of these things are remotely comparable to actual physical evidence and running like hell. I have literally no idea how OJ got off, but I don’t think that freakshow is an example of justice, and I don’t think it’s a good analogy at all. If Lance were found with needles in his car and tracks on his arms, that’d be comparable. And I’d be agreeing with you.
Reasonable suspicion is not the standard (thank god), it is the “preponderance of evidence”, which is not the same thing at all. What you have in Armstrong’s case boils down to the seigneur’s word against his, plus his flawless test record. You may think this is a “preponderance of evidence”, in which case I hope you won’t take offence when I say that I sincerely hope you never serve on a jury.
Well, if it’s pedantry to insist that accusation and suspicion is not equivalent to guilt, then I’ll gladly confess. May there be many more pedants like me.
Threemae, are you certain that the l’Aple de Huez stage was the exact same distance in '86 as '90? The '90 Tour was 600km, and 2 stages shorter than '86, but the overall average speed was less than one mile per hour faster. That seems to bring your assertion of a 19% increase, due only to speed, into question.
threemae, I got here late, so I apologize for not being able to tell you earlier that you’re an insipid, rumor-mongering, illogical fucktard with a keyboard.
Instead of spending your seemingly limitless energy acting like a clown, typing like a chimp, and generally looking for attention, go read a book on critical thinking, and then try, try, to understand how far you have to go.
I’m sick to death of fucking Sherly Crow. Lance can have her.
You are good at spewing venom.
You are very bad at answering direct questions.
Eh, I’ll admit that I’m not sure about the details of those times, but, unfortunately, details are scarcely forthcoming from all the Googling that I did. I was under the impression that Andy Hampstens performance in 1992 was even faster by a matter of minutes, but in 45 minutes of Googling, I couldn’t find Hampsten’s time. The time itself the exact same course, from the same sign/whatever before the first switchback, up the same 21 switchbacks, and then onto the same finish line. So, yes, the riders did ride the same course 19% faster. I made sure that I wasn’t comparing a 105 mile stage to a 140 mile one. I do know that all of these performances occurred at the end of typical, 100+ mile stages, not in the type of time trial format seen in the 2004 Tour, so I do believe that they are comparable, minus bike differences. I’ll certainly grant that not all of this difference is due to doping, but the entire difference sure as hell isn’t due to the shaving of 3 pounds off a bike. If you can find a more appropriately comparable measuring device, I’m all for it, this is just the only thing that really seemed available on the internet. I was actually suprised at how difficult it was to find exact results from tours before around 1999.
I think that this is something that people which take an unbiased look at the evidence available to us will agree upon. I’ll grant that the evidence isn’t as strong as, for example, against OJ, but it is strong and definite. I’m not trying to prove this in a criminal case, this is a board where people can come and make reasonable decisions based upon all the information available.
[quote]
While not wanting to inject actual facts into this thread, someone said in threemae’s other thread that Millar tested several times with elevated haematocrit levels, and that Armstrong never has. Can anyone confirm this? Haematocrit levels aren’t enough to cause a positive test on their own, but they are direct indicators of the effects of EPO. {/quote]
Ummm, no, that’s the point. Millar never had hematocrit levels high enough to lead to his ejection from any race, at least none that I can find in reading a large number of articles on it. If a rider doesn’t fail the hematocrit “safety test” then the number isn’t reported. So what is Lance at now? 35? Not likely? 45? Probably. 49? Maybe. 50? You can be sure that Postal knows the exact number and uses (permitted) methods such as IV fluid or oral fluids to keep this number exactly where they want it to be for the tests. And yeah, if you have a hematocrit level of 50, you get ejected, no questions asked, although again, you don’t get suspended. Like you said, it’s only evidence of EPO, not definite proof.
Nothing personal, but quotes like this sort of make me belive that you don’t totally understand what EPO is or does. Again, it is a naturally occuring hormone that your body releases at a certain level; it releases more to adapt to altitude etc. It is the hormone that tells bone marrow to produce red blood cells. Hematocrit is the percent of your blood volume made up of RBC’s. Its effects are cumulative, but not over six years. If someone begins EPO today, they might manage themselves up to a hematocrit of 49 in three weeks, stay on a maintenance dose, and then stop taking it in six months, and in a few days after stoping they would have normal levels of EPO in their blood; in three weeks they’d have normal hematocrit leves. In the off season, there would be absolutely no trace of the synthetic EPO usage. Synthetic and natural EPO are the same molecule, so again, it’s impossible to prove that anything is of a synthetic origin.
What I really think should happen is forcing EPO manufacturers to put some sort of inert chemical tracer into their product that would be difficult to remove, relatively long lasting, and easy to test for. Same thing for other naturally occuring hormones that so many cyclists are using. I don’t have a good idea of how many manufacturers there are for these things, but there can’t be that many, can there? These hormones aren’t like meth or someting that white-trash can make in a bath-tub, are they?
Why not? As I understand it, the minimum weight of a bike is just under 15 lbs. For all practical purposes that’s what Lance’s bike weighs (he had trouble qualifying his bike for the L’Alpe-d’Heuz). Assuming that the bikes came down from 18 to 15 lbs, that’s a 17% improvement in bike weight. Between that, better training techniques, and improvements in equipment above and beyond weight, why is an overall 19% improvement in time unreasonable?
Becasue we’re not even talking about Armstrong, we’re talking about LeMond/Hinault vs. Bugno in five years. That three pounds off the bike accounts for less than 2% of total weight, so were still looking for that other 90% of the performance increase. LA and Pantani’s improvement over Bugono, Hampsten, etc. are tiny compared to this change in speeds.
Training methods? What changes in training methods would you point to that can increase power by 17% in five years? The idea of periodization was one that LeMond championed by focusing solely on the Tour.
Just as others are willing to concede that it is possible that LA is doped, I’ll admit that it’s possible he’s not, but the overwhelming majority of the data points otherwise.
Why is it not concievable that Armstrong is just a freak of nature? Look at Tiger Woods for comparison. He came along and smashed records (Masters by 12 strokes, US Open by 15) and dominated his sport like no one before him. He just was better and worked harder than anyone else. Now people have caught up because they adopted his training methods and mental toughness.
He didn’t cheat, and nobody accused him of it. Why Armstrong?
The OP is just pulling shit out of his ass. If he actually wanted to debate the subject, he’d post his thread in GD instead of here. There is no **data ** that Lance is doped, just wild ass accusations.
That’s fair enough. Unless it’s proven that he is, however, it’s pretty irresponsible of you to begin thread titles that proclaim “And yes, he is doped.” as if that possibility does not exist.
Wayne Gretzky excelled in hockey. He excelled at a young age. He excelled in the professional ranks. He now holds nearly every record a player can get. People have been saying for years that doping is endemic to all sports. Wayne Greztky was better than those that used amphetamines, etc. therefore Wayne Gretzky doped.
That seems to be what is being said about Lance Armstrong. Despite the fact that he has been a talented athlete since childhood, apparently has physical traits that would be highly beneficial to a person in cycling, trains like a maniac in the off season, has a team of people behind him making sure that he has the best bike, gear, etc., and has never once tested positive for performance enhancing chemicals, he must be doping because everybody else dopes and nobody could beat the dopers without dope.
Isn’t it possible that he a) outworks the others in between events making himself better prepared than the rest, b) is just better than the rest of them?
But, you still haven’t proven there was a change in speed due to doping. Just saying “they went faster, they went faster” doesn’t prove anything.
You can’t find details, but you’re sure that the comparisons are accurate? You know all about the two stages except details on the time. Seems inconsistent. What was the temperature on each day? Was it wet or dry? Windy or calm? There are a hundred small factors that could add up to big changes in time.
As for speed improvements, probably the best measure is the average speed of finish as it covers the broadest range of factors and tends to minimize any temporary advantage.
The '86 Tour, 23 stages, 4094k, 37.020 km/h
The '87 Tour, 25 stages, 4231k, 36.645 km/h 1% slower
The '88 Tour, 22 stages, 3286k, 38.909 km/h 6% faster - but 23% shorter
The '89 Tour, 21 stages, 3285k, 37.487 km/h 3% slower
The '90 Tour, 21 stages, 3504k, 38.621 km/h 3% faster
The '91 Tour, 22 stages, 3914k, 38.747 km/h <1% faster
I certainly don’t see any radical jump that would indicate widespread doping popping up out of nowhere.
Well, I guess that I’d just have to say that cycling isn’t hockey. I don’t know a whole lot about hockey, and certainly there are pure physical components of it, but just like golf and tiger woods, its a sport where there is also a lot of physical coordination and mental aspects to it that would lend themselves more to exceptional stand out performances than more straight forward physical sports like cycling.
Sort of what I’m hearing is that, yes, you’ll awknowedge that the peleton is awash in drugs, but Lance is so amazing that he can leapfrog the enormous benefits of using dope and still be a dominant cyclist. Again, possible, but not a reasonable conclusion based upon all the evidence. We’re not talking about meth here. That is the type of performance enhancing drugs available to LeMond’s era, where cyclists could go bonzo for a stage or, kill their legs and the rest of their body, and ultimately fall off the back. We’re talking about sophisticated hormones that give particular instruction to the body to adapt in certain ways beyond what is natually possible. I hear a lot about how Lance Armstrong is “naturally inclined” towards cycling, but I haven’t seen a lot of evidence for it. I’ll grant that it’s possible that super-long femurs might grant him an edge or something, but given that sports physiologists are constantly engaged in debate about positioning and what’s better to have longer or shorter, that seems to be a little bit of an after-the fact conclusion. Other factors, like having a heart 1/3 larger than “normal” has been linked to IGF-1, which, as said earlier, leads to hypertrophy of the heart and other organs. Also, it seems to suggest that the pro’s he’s racing against aren’t already naturally adept at the sport. I don’t want to get bogged down in some debate on partisan nationalism, but it seems to be a particularly American perspective that LA could just come into a sport and naturally dominate or do so through harder training because they don’t see and have a good understanding of the millions upon millions of competitive amateur cyclists around the world.
The claim that LA just “works harder” annoys me becasue there is hardly a pro whose entire life isn’t a delicate balancing act between training and overtraining. In fact, according to Chris Carmichael, the biggest change in LA’s training this year has been to economize and minimize training, doing in 4 hours what used to be done in 6. There are certainly other pro’s that ride more than him, and it hasn’t seemed to directly correlate into results.
I’m not arguing that Lance Armstrong doesn’t have the natural inclination to be an exceptional cyclist, but I don’t think it is reasonable to suggest that he has the natural ability to leap frog over the speed increases offered by doping.
Zakalwe, I chose to use a standard climb as my measuring stick because it gives us the most consistent measurment of power to weight of the lead riders, and when we look at that, it’s hard to say that the jumps aren’t dramatic. Maybe we could find some data from some other climbs? I shyed away from using overall tour speed data because an overall Tour route is much more variable than a single climb. I disagree that it averages together all of the factors you mentioned like weather or wind speed. Although those certainly have an effect, I have to say that they’re of pretty minimal importance compared to the change in Tour courses every year. Also, it hides the effect of performances of individual riders; the riders may be doped and suddenly capable of going a hell of a lot faster when they are attacking, but that doesn’t mean a whole lot in terms of what the peleton itself actually moves at. For instance, the final stage of this year’s Giro had a speed of close to 25 KPH inspite of good weather, being flat, and no real wind. Obviously, people aren’t going to move the peleton unless they have to, and since no-one wanted to attack, they were moving at snail’s pace. So, that’s why the leaders on a climb is a better measurment.
And that sure as hell shows some dramatic changes.
What other climbs could we maybe find a lot of info on that the Tour visits regularly? Ventoux?
Hiya! My name’s Baseless Accusation!
Me ‘n my buddies Circumstantial Evidence and Unfounded Speculation were lookin’ around for a thread to call home, and by gum if this ain’t the homiest thread we’ve ever seen! If’n you-all don’t mind, we’re gonna camp out in here a while and see how it fits us. Might even take a dump and a shower in your bathroom, just to make sure we like it. But I gotta tell you, our first impression is that this’ll suit us juuuuuuuust fine.
threemae, have you ever heard the term “Occam’s razor”? Look into it.