Armstrong has been tinkered with!!

Tejano

My point is this! Common logic says that Indurain made steady progress worked hard and gradually made it to the top of the TDF! 97th,47th,17th,10th,1st!

Common logic says Armstrong only finished 1 out of 4 TDF´s he entered pre-cancer so how does he come back from cancer to win the TDF.

If at 23 yrs. old LA is at worst as good as MI (Clearly by using TDF, One day classics, or UCI road rankings LA was a much better rider) how if 4 yrs later when they both win the TDF at 27 yrs. old is one celebrated as steady consistent progress and the other a dramatic change only possible with EPO!

LA was a lot better at 23 he had a lot less distance to cover to with the TDF at 27 than MI! Therefore if Indurain made steady progress so did Armstrong!

The number one reason people on this thread LA is doped is the big change pre and post cancer!

I have just proven them wrong! And I have a shit load more to support this FACT!

Thought this was interesting! You might want to buy the book! I don´t know the conclusion but looks interesting! It may prove Ferrari right! NO FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE?

What the numbers can reveal

· Freakonomics A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner William Morrow: 242 pp., $25.95


By Michael Shermer, Michael Shermer is the publisher of Skeptic Magazine, a columnist for Scientific American and the author of "The Science of Good & Evil" and "Science Friction."

OVER a quarter-century of serious cycling, I've heard the rumors about performance-enhancing drugs — stimulants in the 1970s, steroids in the 1980s and blood boosters such as erythropoietin (EPO) in the 1990s. A friend who knows my penchant for exposing fraud suggested I track Tour de France winners' speeds and note the increase after 1991, the year he says EPO was introduced. Because my friend won the Tour three times, I figured it was worth checking.

From 1949 to 1962, the Tour winners averaged 34.7 kilometers per hour (about 21.5 mph). From 1963 to 1976, the average increased to 35.4 kph, a 2% difference. From 1977 to 1990, the average increased another 2% to 36.2 kph. From 1991 to 2004, the average speed jumped to 39.5 kph, a 9% increase. Something must have happened in the 1990s to trigger such a leap in speed.



EPO? Maybe. But composite materials led to lighter, stronger bikes. Clothing became more aerodynamic. Nutrition and training became more scientific. The number of racers grew from an average of about 120 in the '50s to about 190 in the '90s. (More riders accentuates drafting and increases speeds on the flat stages.) Also, the race has been shortened about 620 miles over the last 50 years. Can these factors account for the spike in the '90s? We could compare the split times on crucial mountain stages between top riders and average riders, pre- and post-1991, with the presumption that elite riders would be using the best performance-enhancing drugs under the direction of the most knowledgeable sports physicians. A significant difference between top riders, but not among average riders, pre- and post-1991, would be compelling evidence of artificial performance enhancement.

My model for this exercise in data comparison came from Steven D. Levitt, an economist at the University of Chicago who is shaking up his profession by applying standard methods from the social sciences to very nonstandard questions from the real world.

A 2003 New York Times Magazine article about Levitt by journalist Stephen J. Dubner led to their collaboration on the new book "Freakonomics," which was primarily written by Dubner and is a hodgepodge of Levitt's polymathic interests. Although the authors eschew any central theme, I took from it two messages: Science can answer the broadest range of questions (even freakish ones) about human behavior, and incentives and motivations are intimately linked in driving human behavior.

For example, Levitt devised an algorithm to analyze Chicago public school data, revealing that some teachers inflated student scores on state exams by filling in answers to harder questions (always the same block of correct answers). There also was a spike in the scores one year, followed by a drop to earlier levels. Retests on these same students proved that they did not know the answers to those harder questions. The teachers were fired.

Levitt also discovered that sumo wrestlers were fixing some of their matches. To rise in rank and earn more money, a wrestler must finish a tournament of 15 matches with a winning record. Levitt found a pattern of cheating whenever a wrestler with a 7-7 record (and a lot to gain by winning one more) was pitted against an 8-6 wrestler (with little to lose) in the final bout of a tournament. A 7-7 wrestler's predicted win percentage against an 8-6 opponent was 48.7%, whereas the actual win percentage was 79.6%. The next time these wrestlers competed and there was nothing at stake, the 7-7 wrestlers won only 40% of the rematches. "The most logical explanation," Levitt concludes, "is that the wrestlers made a quid pro quo agreement: you let me win today, when I really need the victory, and I'll let you win the next time."

Levitt's most controversial computation involves the dramatic 1990s drop in crime rates. The reason, he says, is not tougher gun control laws, capital punishment, decreasing unemployment or a stronger economy. It is Roe vs. Wade. Research shows that children from impoverished and adverse environments are more likely to become criminals. After the 1973 court decision made legal abortions possible, millions of poor, single women aborted unwanted fetuses; 20 years later, the pool of potential criminals had shrunk, as did the crime rate. (The solution isn't more abortions, he says, but "better environments for those children at greatest risk for future crime.")

Of course, correlation does not always mean causation, and explaining the causes of crime is a complex, multivariate problem. But Levitt also shows that the five states that legalized abortion two years before Roe vs. Wade saw a drop in crime earlier than the other states. Further, those states with the highest abortion rates in the 1970s experienced the greatest drop in crime in the 1990s, and the entire decline in crime was among the age group born after 1973, not among older groups.

More generally, Levitt demonstrates that the crime rate also dropped when three additional factors shrank the pool of criminals: Increased rates of imprisonment accounted for a third of the drop (compared with capital punishment, which led to 4% of the decrease); increased numbers of police officers accounted for 10% of the crime drop; and the collapse of the crack cocaine market caused profits to drop along with the incentive to sell it (and thus the accompanying violence declined), accounting for an additional 15% of the crime plunge.

Levitt employs statistical tools that are simple yet elegant. He cuts to the heart of a question and picks topics that are fascinating. All social scientists should ask themselves if the problems they are working on are as interesting or important as those in this superb work. •

gntlmn

Good thing for you you don't use your real name. You're making some big time libelous comments here against some top guns. Indurain, Armstrong, Berzin, Rominger, Merckx? You might find evidence on a couple of them, but in total, you would be dead meat in court and subject to civil penalties for libel. Perhaps a few of them will trace your comments to their source--you--and bring you to court for damages.

Dead Star

oh don't be so American. Everything has to go to court with you people doesn't it? Nowhere else in the world can you have someone who says they jump in front of cars and sue the drivers?

Anyway, dunno 'bout Indurain, I still consider him a freak of nature with those bloody lungs.

Armstrong....as Morrissey once sung: "i'm not the man you think i am"

Berzin was on Gewiss, so oh yes.

Rominger...he's Swiss and he saw Dr Ferrari...it's like going to a brothel but saying I was only there to look.

Merckx admitted he doped, got disqualified couple of times 'cos he doped, but I still respect the guy regardless

Tejano

Are you ignorant or what! You list of the top five performers who work with Ferrari and claim they are succesful because of his help in doping? I´d say they were all gifted athletes who in there own way were natural freaks!

Ferrari has worked with many other riders besides those big names! In fact one comes to mind! Fillipo Simeoni!!!! If he was a Mule on EPO what was he before EPO?????

Ferrari is the best out there! Not because of drugs but because he is a genius! Check out his web site dedicated to his training philosophy!

The guy knows his stuff and has been on the leading edge of many new and inovative techniques in cycling.

And What about Fillipo Simeoni???? He wasn´t satisfied with Ferrari´s program! How the hell is that possible? Dr. Frankenstein???

Here´s my take

-ROAD WORLD'S – PROS. 1993

“The signs were already there, even for those who refused to get carried away by the hyperbolic press that Lance Armstrong had been receiving. While skeptics grumbled about ignoring such hype until the young rider has really proven himself”

-An experienced eye during the 1993 Tour de France

"He doesn't ride very smart. He takes a lot of wind, attacks at crazy times, and wastes a lot of energy. He's got a lot to learn. He could be very good though -he's very strong."

-Andy Hampsten

Like Greg, I too saw what I believe were the effects of EPO when it entered pro cycling in the early 90s. In the first years it grew from a few individuals reaping obscene wins from exploiting its “benefits,” to entire teams relying on it, essentially forcing all but the most gifted racers to either use EPO to keep their place in cycling, quit, or become just another obscure rider in the group.

-Lance Armstrong

"I did train hard from '92 to '96, and I did have good results," says Armstrong, who in that time won a couple of Tour de France stages as well as the 1993 world championship. "But it was nothing compared with the training I'm doing now."

-Kristin Armstrong. Lance Journal. Cycling news.com

February 11, 1998, Cap Ferrat, FRANCE

At times he feels so good to be back on the bike- strong and quick. Other times if he has an off -day, he is scared out of his mind

People always ask me if I think Lance will do well this season. My belief is that success takes more than strength, discipline and dedication - though these things are essential. Lance has always had those traits, combined with his famous Texas bravado. But in the past year, Lance has acquired something more as a result of facing his own mortality and finding his soulmate in the process. What Lance has acquired is BALANCE. Where his bravado gave him fire before - he is now fueled by something else. Something much more mature, more intelligent, more competitive and more imposing to the competition. It is passion and guts in its raw and primal form the way you earn it when you stare death in the face and in my opinion, it should be cause for other cyclists to be shaking in their pedals.

I´ve already demonstrated that LA made no dramatic change from pre to post cancer so I need to ask Micron what the second reason was on his list as to why LA is doped!

Fillipo Simeoni! No fundamental change! Once a Mule always a Mule! Once a Horse always a Horse!

Dead Star

You can talk! coming from the land of Kelme!

Tejano

-BikeBiz.com. Thursday 29th July 2004

"Lance Armstrong has won six Tours de France because of his hill climbing abilities. Ferrari is a specialist in cycle hill climbing research, having perfected the VAM (velocita ascensionale media) average climbing speed test and, via a database of hill profiles and rider ascent times logged from TV broadcasts, is able to tell Armstrong's manager, via cellphone, when climbers ahead of Lance will crack.

Armstrong is also renowned for his high cadence on hill climbs. This technique was suggested to Armstrong in 1998 by Ferrari, and Armstrong's coach, Chris Carmichael."

What kills you Haters is Armstrong isn´t dirty and you can´t accept it ´cause all your heros have either tested positive or admitted using! How can the American win more tours and be clean?????

A tough pill to swallow!

scott0425

What is there to "debate" about serious doping stuff? Who is and who isn't??
As is the case 100% of the time....none of them are doping---until they get caught.....oops

Also, It isn't a debate if all the 'mature' people who think LA dopes are the ones posting....

snyper0311

Here comes the second part of the doping scheme.

In a few months, there will be a book published on Bill Romonski, the pro football player associated with using EPO/steroids. The book will outline his use of enhancers during his career as a professional football player. In this book, it is speculated that he will show how he managed to stay one step ahead of the "drug test" game. He used something until it became banned and then he would switch to some "newer" form of enhancer.

So, Flyer, to you I pose this question- "Is it cheating if it is not considered illegal?"


I'll even go on record by saying, if you answer yes, then you are actually right! EVERYONE-every athlete, every person who lives in society today is on some sort of performance enhancing drug. This includes both you and I. So, you are right, 100% of the pro ranks-100% of EVERY living human being uses some sort of performance enhancers. EVERYONE!