Roadie_scum said:
Gee. Millar looked like a different rider last year. Amazing in the TTs at the tour. And the Vuelta stage win. And the worlds. Always promising... but gee whiz...
It is possible that some elites have such high endogenous production of certain ergogenic substances that exogenous supplementation is less helpful than to 'normal' athletes. I don't think this would be true for all substances.
An explanation for why PED's don't turn a good rider into a great rider is that all the great riders are already using them. Or that there are legal ergogenic aids being used with similar effects that we are unaware.
Again, all very good points!
Roadie_scum said:
Although it's often repeated as an article of faith amongst those who disagree with a certain scientific viewpoint, I'm not convinced there are many circumstances where 'real world' results and tests are starkly different (without further explanation - eg results may be different where temperatures, hydration of athletes, testing equipment, etc is different). Tests are performed in the 'real world' last time I checked.
Okay, so let's say for the sake of argument that Armstong
does in fact benefit from the full 10% (or more!) performance increase that has been proven in the testing. The "Armstrong-is-a-doper" contingent keeps pointing to LA's pre-cancer and post-cancer improvement as sufficient evidence to condemn him as a doper and insinuate that it's the PED's have elevated him to the level that he's performing at today. Basically they would have all of us beleive that his victories are not genuine because he's juiced on on PED's. Many of you guys also say that the entire pro peloton is PED fueled (which may very well be true!).
I would argue that:
1. Since his recovery from cancer, Armstrong has shown a lot
greater than a 10% performance increase. He went from being a guy who might be a threat to win a stage of the TdF but was unable to contend for a GC title (and in some cases he was unable to finish) to a guy who has won
six TdF's in a row (in some cases stomping his competition). This is
far too great an improvement to be explained away by the 10% (or greater) increase supposedly garnered by using PED's. So - in my opinion - PED's
can't possibly account
in full for LA's improvement (which again, is what some would seem to want us to believe).
2. If the entire pro peleton
is doping, and the slate were wiped clean (by eliminating PED's from the equation) so to speak,
LA would still be winning. The idea that LA's TdF wins can be contributed
only to drug use and without them he wouldn't be there is
completely ridiculous!
I've never really argued anything more than the fact that LA is probably just as clean and just as innocent as
any other rider (with a few possible exceptions) in the peloton. So what I have trouble with is when some folks call LA's victories disingenuous but they do not point to anyone else who's winning. It's like they've singled out Armstrong as the villain just becuase he's the one winning the TdF. Armstrong's victories are false but for everyone else it's okay!?!?! I've read in some books (read "Put Me Back on My Bike" by William Fotheringham, the story of Tom Simpson) and articles that PED's are and will always be an accepted part of top-level cycling, that that's just the way it is. Not just today but in past years as well.
And that's sort-of my whole point. Why has Armstrong been singled out as the big scoundrel and "dirty rider"?
Roadie_scum said:
Since when did athletes demonstrate a great understanding of their own capabilities and physiology?
I'm not sure what you're getting at here or it's relevence to this discussion but I would argue that not only LA but most of the top riders have an
intimate understanding of their physiology and athletic capabilities!!! At the top level, that's what it's all about.