tessartype wrote:
avagoyamug wrote:
Craig P wrote:
Actually, even muscle twitch recruitment/changes recede to original type/levels, all physiological gains recede, there is a decent amount of research on it and it is pretty unequivocal. That is not to say what you did, which may be residual "muscle memory" or psychological advantages. Either way dopers suck, but the fact is there aren't significant long-term advantages. In Colom's case, he doped, and because of it got to maintain a lifestyle of top notch coaching and training which IS a significant advantage, as we all know mileage on your legs doping or not provides significant advantages.If there are studies to show that a long term comprehensive doping program leaves absolutely no benefit when the doping stops, I would be HIGHLY suspicious of the methodology. What we see in the real world seems to prove otherwise. Pretty much without question.
Without question? Christ, with the amount of armchair science-ing going on in this thread, we could find a cure for cancer.
First, most studies don't say "absolutely no benefit", just that the benefit is either negligible or offset by the downsides (damaged natural hormone production or uptake). After two years, the better training in the past starts to fade, and the reduced capacity starts to take it's toll.
Second, if anything, that's what we see in the real world. Lots of dopers come back from their bans weaker, tire more quickly, and fade faster than before. Jonathan Vaughters is one of the few people who have power files pre- and post-bans of riders, and his experience should carry a bit more weight than a Slowtwitcher's "I think".
If you think for a second that you (or any age-grouper short of Gyde and his sub-9 peers) stood a chance against a hypothetical dope-free Colom, you can stop deluding yourself. To become a doping euro-pro, you first have to become a euro-pro. You have to show enough potential in the junior and U23 ranks, prove to others that you're worth the investment - EPO ain't cheap, you know. You can't turn a mule into a derby winner, and each and every one of these busted dopers would be a top-level athlete without it.
You are arm-chair sciencing as well as the rest. Cherry-picking studies that inevitably say "more research needed" and citing them as indesputible proof is not only arm chair science it is bad science dressed up as conclusive evidence.
And starting on the "these guys are great even if they hypothetically didn't dope, so shut up as they would have beaten you", is nothing less than a pathetic argument devoid of not only science but reason and common sense.
Last edited by:
avagoyamug: Jul 9, 14 8:25