I like this video…
Interestingly the same time period you claim speeds went up happens to be the time when bike technology, sports nutrition and training methods where making gains by leaps and bounds. That was also the time when pro bike racing began to change as well to a race where speeds at the start were higher due to less distance in races that was essentially neutralized by the riders. Many riders will talk about how, up to that point, the race really only began when tv coverage started.
read what LeMond has said on the subject- numerous places… EPO came into the peloton big time in the early 1990’s - a big change was from 1990 to 1991. Doping and cycling has been intertwined since the beginning of cycling- from alcohol, to amphetimines, to steroids, to blood boosting products- they all have been and many are still used. Read the authoritative book on the History of the Tour de France- http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sweat-Gods-Legends-Bicycle-Racing/dp/1874739374/ref=sr_1_1/203-2863138-0030323?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183064432&sr=1-1 A very well written book. It does not focus on doping- but it does not sweep it under the table… many multiple time champions- while racing- have said- you would be an imbecile to not dope and try and race this race. The comment about the early 1990s- was that oxygen boosting drugs increased speed and recovery better than any other previous drug- by massive amounts. So- if you were a top rider until that time- you would be getting dropped by minutes by riders who were pack fodder the year before. Riders want to keep their jobs- they need to keep up- the playing field is level for the helper and general classification riders… if a rider doesn’t perform- they don’t have a contract for the next year. Most contracts are only 1 year in length… anyway- the pressure to dope is not really pressure for many- it’s preparation- a way of life and culture. Here’s a very good book- from an insider in the sport- Willy Voet- who was caught up in the 1998 Festina Scandal. This does cover drug usage in cycling:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Breaking-Chain-Drugs-Cycling-Story/dp/0224061178/ref=sr_1_1/203-2863138-0030323?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183064735&sr=1-1
Read this months velonews- Davis Phinney- America’s all time winningest racer- says the same thing… many, many, many riders have opened up and come out of the silence (omerta)… and admitted their usage. Lance’s 1999 and 2000 test samples were tested for EPO- after the fact- b/c the EPO test did not start to be used until after the 2000 tour- and Lance’s samples from 1999 and 2000 contained EPO. Doping is pervasive in many, many sports- just accept it and move on and enjoy the drama and entertainment. I do agree that the playing field is level- i.e. if everyone is doped- Lance would win, if everyone was clean, Lance would win.
Interestingly the same time period you claim speeds went up happens to be the time when bike technology, sports nutrition and training methods where making gains by leaps and bounds. That was also the time when pro bike racing began to change as well to a race where speeds at the start were higher due to less distance in races that was essentially neutralized by the riders. Many riders will talk about how, up to that point, the race really only began when tv coverage started.
Thank you for supporting my argument. People get smarter as the time goes on. We use to believe that we are the center of the universe. We use to believe that the world is flat. And the early riders use to believe that smoking cigarettes would help open up their lungs. They would smoke while climbing the Alps and the Pyrenees. It may seem ridiculous to us now, but it made sense to them at the time. I believe that every sport goes through series of evolutions by the atheletes and the results will bring them to the next level in their sports. It just sad that the evolution that Lance discover came at the same period as the doping scandals.
It just sad that the evolution that Lance discover came at the same period as the doping scandals.
How do you explain this… http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8748.0.html
oh, it’s okay- head can go back into sand… Americans are dope free… 
By The Associated Press This report filed August 24, 2005
PARIS - The director of the Tour de France said now that there is “compelling scientific evidence” that Lance Armstrong used performance-enhancing drugs in winning the 1999 Tour, the seven-time champion owes cycling fans an explanation.
In a story Wednesday’s edition of L’Equipe, Jean-Marie Leblanc praised the paper for an investigation that reported that six urine samples provided by Armstrong during the 1999 Tour tested positive for the red blood cell-booster EPO. The French sports daily on Tuesday accused Armstrong of using EPO during his first Tour win in 1999.
**“For the first time _ and these are no longer rumors, or insinuations, these are proven scientific facts _ someone has shown me that in 1999, Armstrong had a banned substance called EPO in his body,” Leblanc said. **
“Andy Hampsten talks about the fact that he was always one of the top five climbers in the world, and when EPO came around, there was suddenly a group of 50 that were riding faster than he could ride. He knew from his own training; he logged all his times, he knew his level hadn’t diminished, and suddenly he’s not in the top 50. So something radical has changed, and it was EPO.”
Do you honestly believe that people will continue to get bigger, stronger, faster just because of training and nutrition?? That’s kind of a slap in the face to past generations. I, for one, believe that the human potential has been maxed out (cleanly) in most sports by now, and any improvements will be the result of better equipment, or PED’s. Of course, there may be some exceptions to that.
Interestingly the same time period you claim speeds went up happens to be the time when bike technology, sports nutrition and training methods where making gains by leaps and bounds. That was also the time when pro bike racing began to change as well to a race where speeds at the start were higher due to less distance in races that was essentially neutralized by the riders. Many riders will talk about how, up to that point, the race really only began when tv coverage started.
read what LeMond has said on the subject- numerous places… EPO came into the peloton big time in the early 1990’s - a big change was from 1990 to 1991. Doping and cycling has been intertwined since the beginning of cycling- from alcohol, to amphetimines, to steroids, to blood boosting products- they all have been and many are still used. Read the authoritative book on the History of the Tour de France- http://www.amazon.co.uk/...183064432&sr=1-1 A very well written book. It does not focus on doping- but it does not sweep it under the table… many multiple time champions- while racing- have said- you would be an imbecile to not dope and try and race this race. The comment about the early 1990s- was that oxygen boosting drugs increased speed and recovery better than any other previous drug- by massive amounts. So- if you were a top rider until that time- you would be getting dropped by minutes by riders who were pack fodder the year before. Riders want to keep their jobs- they need to keep up- the playing field is level for the helper and general classification riders… if a rider doesn’t perform- they don’t have a contract for the next year. Most contracts are only 1 year in length… anyway- the pressure to dope is not really pressure for many- it’s preparation- a way of life and culture. Here’s a very good book- from an insider in the sport- Willy Voet- who was caught up in the 1998 Festina Scandal. This does cover drug usage in cycling:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/...183064735&sr=1-1
Read this months velonews- Davis Phinney- America’s all time winningest racer- says the same thing… many, many, many riders have opened up and come out of the silence (omerta)… and admitted their usage. Lance’s 1999 and 2000 test samples were tested for EPO- after the fact- b/c the EPO test did not start to be used until after the 2000 tour- and Lance’s samples from 1999 and 2000 contained EPO. Doping is pervasive in many, many sports- just accept it and move on and enjoy the drama and entertainment. I do agree that the playing field is level- i.e. if everyone is doped- Lance would win, if everyone was clean, Lance would win.
I never said anything about when or if EPO came into the peloton…they did and we know it…just like we know how the things I talked about came into cycling and made average speeds faster as well.
I’ve read the book, what would you like to know?
Is it worth reading?
TV coverage has been live and covering European cycling for decades… maybe it’s just come to the U.S. markets in the last 10 years- but it’s been in the Euro markets forever- live, non-stop, often commercial free, coverage, all day long, on multiple channels, multiple languages. LeMond would disagree with you re: training methods or less distance… the races are still similar lengths. The real difference is speed in the climbing speed- and the ability to recover and continue the ferocious climbing speeds during the mt stages. Check out Tour History- average speeds for each race- http://www.cyclingnews.com/tour07.php?id=results/history/tdfhistory
If you look at the top 12 times for probably the most famous (not hardest, though) climb in the Tour de France- the ascent of Alpe D’Huez- notice how many have been associated with doping and/or caught…
1 Marco Pantani (1995) 36’50 - received epo doping suspension, committed suicide, addicted to drugs,
2 Marco Pantani (1997) 36’55 - as above- epo
3 Marco Pantani (1994) 37’15 - as above- epo
4 Lance Armstrong (2004) 37’36 - I was there this day… and rode the Alpe with a million fans going nuts- anyway- tested retroactively positive for EPO in 1999 and 2000
5 Jan Ullrich (1997) 37’40 - T-Mobile- retired- when his blood found with Operation Puerto- doping scandal, and Telekom Team 1990s
6 Lance Armstrong (2001) 38’05 - EPO in 1999, 2000
7 Miguel Indurain (1995) 38’10 - no EPO tests during his cycling days
8 Alex Zülle (1995) 38’10 - Admitted to using EPO
9 Bjarne Riis (1995) 38’15 - admitted to using EPO entire career
10 Richard Virenque (1997) 38’20 - Admitted to using EPO
11 Iban Mayo (2003) 39’06- suspected of doping- including at 2007 Tour of Italy
12 Giuseppe Guerini (1999) 41’52 - part of Team Telekom and Jan Ullrich’s team- most who admitted recently to EPO use- Zabel, Aldag, Riis, et al
How do these times compare with the cycling greats of a several years prior… ???
As stated, there is a lack of clear records available but it is reported that Bernard Hinault and Greg LeMond climbed the mountain in a considerable 48 minutes back in 1986.
When Times for climbing improve by 10, 20, 27% in less than 9 years… it ain’t the training methods, but the ‘preparation’ methods by the chemists. If a cyclist wants to ride with the peloton- forget winning- just riding- keeping up- they have no choice- but to do what others are doing for ‘preparation’.
Sure. It won’t change your mind about whether or not Lance doped, since at this point people are locked in. What interested me the most is that according to the SCA trial and the notes of Coyle on Lance’s physiological numbers–they aren’t that impressive. According to the trial, his max V02 was in the mid-seventies, and that only once in 7 years (92-99) did he test above 80 which was always the number he referenced. Also, his weight loss wasn’t dramatic either, he actually weighed in at 1 kilo *above *his '92 weight, 3 months after winning his first Tour in '99.
So from 95-99, all that changed was his age and his health. But in '99 he rode away from everyone in the race. Hmm.
Another interesting piece was about LeMond and his taping of conversations with the woman, Stephanie McIlvaine? from Oakley, who may have perjured herself in the trial. According to the conversation, she talks about how she won’t lie that she heard Lance admit to taking PED’s, and how it’s bullshit that so many people protect him and look for him for hope and that it makes her sick how people protect him.
As a cancer survivor who has met Lance, the book just made me sad. When I was winning the AG race at Coeur d’Alene, one of the things I thought of was Lance. Sure, I believe he took PED’s, but while out there I didn’t think about that. All I thought of was he is the beacon of hope for all cancer patients who feel like they can do extraordinary things in their recovery. “Lance can win the Tour 7 times, i’m winning this race the way he did the tour, and i’m doing it as a cancer survivor too.” That’s what I thought a lot out there.
Sorry, I got off-track there. Sure, it’s worth the time if you wanna feel like shit about cycling and Lance Armstrong.
Alpe d’Huez 1988:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTHhWf6BSEM&mode=related&search=
Alpe d’Huez 1989:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjZt3kleCb8
Alpe d’Huez 2001:
http://www.youtube.com/...e=related&search=
you be the judge… no comparison… whatsoever… from mortals to cyborgs…
…pretty remarkable difference…
interesting note- when people talk about nutrition, training methods, etc… the 27th fastest time- by a TRULY talented cyclist- Fausto Coppi- 2 time TDF and 5 time Giro Champion- his time in 1952 was within 2 seconds of the stage winner’s time in 1989 (that’s a 37 year gap)… not anymore… Fastest Alpe d’Huez ascents 
Profile of Alpe d’Huez
Rank Time Name Year Country 1 37’ 35" Marco Pantani 1997 
Italy 2* 37’ 36" Lance Armstrong 2004 
United States 3 38’ 00" Marco Pantani 1994 Italy 4 38’ 01" Lance Armstrong 2001 United States 5 38’ 04" Marco Pantani 1995 Italy 6 38’ 23" Jan Ullrich 1997 
Germany 7 38’ 34" Floyd Landis 2006 United States 8 38’ 35" Andreas Kloden 2006 Germany 9* 38’ 37" Jan Ullrich 2004 Germany 10 39’ 02" Richard Virenque 1997 
France 11 39’ 06" Iban Mayo 2003 
Spain 12* 39’ 17" Andreas Klöden 2004 Germany 13* 39’ 21" Jose Azevedo 2004 
Portugal 14 39’ 28" Miguel Indurain 1995 Spain 15 39’ 28" Alex Zülle 1995 
Switzerland 16 39’ 30" Bjarne Riis 1995 
Denmark 17 39’ 44" Gianni Bugno 1991 Italy 18 39’ 45" Miguel Indurain 1991 Spain 19 40’ 00" Jan Ullrich 2001 Germany 20 40’ 46" Fränk Schleck 2006 
Luxembourg 21 40’ 51" Alexander Vinokourov 2003 
Kazakhstan 22 41’ 18" Lance Armstrong 2003 United States 23 41’ 50" Laurent Fignon 1989 France 24 41’ 50" Lucho Herrara 1986 
Colombia 25 42’ 15" Pedro Delgado 1989 Spain 26 45’ 20" Gert-Jan Theunisse 1989 
Netherlands 27 45’ 22" Fausto Coppi 1952 Italy 28 48’ 00" Greg Lemond 1986 United States 29 48’ 00" Bernard Hinault 1986 France
to be clear, I did not start this thread to try and sway anybody from what they believe…but I thought the book might be interesting, and possibly eye opening. I admit to being very cynical when it comes to sporting achievements now…but I do have an open mind and hold out some hope that there are clean athlete’s out there doing quite well. I’ll probably pick up a copy, as I think it will be interesting.
Right…
That’s exactly what I came away with from your post…
I can understand how this brings about a lot of passion on both sides of the fence. But, - in regard to you, - I find it interesting, and a little sad, that people read something into your post that wasn’t there.
I find it frustrating that we’re never going to know what really happened, and those that claim that they do, or adamently take a side, are standing on very slippery ground, - IMO. It is incredibly complicated, and no Slowtwitcher has ever seen a needle go into the ass of any ProTour rider. And, I’m also willing to bet that no Slowtwitcher has ever seen the testing procedures in the labs that have “busted” riders.
I think that cleaning up the sport is a great idea, but it should be done with apolitical, best practices procedures, - so that if someone is busted for drug use, - there is a high level confidence that that person actually is guilty. Right now, (and I think that many would agree), - that the testing process does not go that way. (Please don’t regard that last statement has any kind of endorsement towards the guilt or innocence of anyone).
Sadly, Floyd’s been found guilty and his name will forever be besmirched, and regarded and labelled a doper and a cheater. If he gets to keep his TDF title, - he’ll be known as someone who has “gotten off on a technicality.” If he gets to keep his title, - the press and public will not fight to clear his name with the same vociferousness that they fought to accuse him. And wouldn’t it be ironic if they gave Oscar Periero the win and he happened to be the one who was “using” when perhaps it was Floyd who was falsely accused? Finally, isn’t it embarassing for the TDF and Cycling that the winner of the 2006 TDF will not be declared until the 3rd or 4th stage of the 2007 TDF, or even later??
TV coverage has been live and covering European cycling for decades… maybe it’s just come to the U.S. markets in the last 10 years- but it’s been in the Euro markets forever- live, non-stop, often commercial free, coverage, all day long, on multiple channels, multiple languages.
BS on two accounts:
- Live coverage used to come on later in the day on Euro TV (at least French), somewhere around two hours before the finish.
- The US has had at least some live coverage since the mid-80’s.
LeMond would disagree with you re: training methods or less distance… the races are still similar lengths. The real difference is speed in the climbing speed- and the ability to recover and continue the ferocious climbing speeds during the mt stages. Check out Tour History- average speeds for each race- http://www.cyclingnews.com/...s/history/tdfhistory
Actually he wouldn’t because one of his biggest wins had a lot to do with the advanced technology.
If you look at the top 12 times for probably the most famous (not hardest, though) climb in the Tour de France- the ascent of Alpe D’Huez- notice how many have been associated with doping and/or caught…
1 Marco Pantani (1995) 36’50 - received epo doping suspension, committed suicide, addicted to drugs,
2 Marco Pantani (1997) 36’55 - as above- epo
3 Marco Pantani (1994) 37’15 - as above- epo
4 Lance Armstrong (2004) 37’36 - I was there this day… and rode the Alpe with a million fans going nuts- anyway- tested retroactively positive for EPO in 1999 and 2000
5 Jan Ullrich (1997) 37’40 - T-Mobile- retired- when his blood found with Operation Puerto- doping scandal, and Telekom Team 1990s
6 Lance Armstrong (2001) 38’05 - EPO in 1999, 2000
7 Miguel Indurain (1995) 38’10 - no EPO tests during his cycling days
8 Alex Zülle (1995) 38’10 - Admitted to using EPO
9 Bjarne Riis (1995) 38’15 - admitted to using EPO entire career
10 Richard Virenque (1997) 38’20 - Admitted to using EPO
11 Iban Mayo (2003) 39’06- suspected of doping- including at 2007 Tour of Italy
12 Giuseppe Guerini (1999) 41’52 - part of Team Telekom and Jan Ullrich’s team- most who admitted recently to EPO use- Zabel, Aldag, Riis, et al
Hmmm, interesting way of “proving” doping is 100% of the reason for faster speeds. Pantani’s only bust was for a high HcT and many think he was set up(and not just fans). His suicide and coke use have nothing to do with using PED’s. Armstrong did not test positive for EPO in 2000 and the 1999 tests had so many issues that their is no way they would stand up in any court. There is no solid info on Guerini using EPO, so to make a claim against him just shows that you have made your decidion and nothing will sway you. The same goes for your comment about Indurain.
How do these times compare with the cycling greats of a several years prior… ???
As stated, there is a lack of clear records available but it is reported that Bernard Hinault and Greg LeMond climbed the mountain in a considerable 48 minutes back in 1986.
When Times for climbing improve by 10, 20, 27% in less than 9 years… it ain’t the training methods, but the ‘preparation’ methods by the chemists. If a cyclist wants to ride with the peloton- forget winning- just riding- keeping up- they have no choice- but to do what others are doing for ‘preparation’.
Ok, now show me proof that things like lighter bikes, better wheels, better shifting, better training, better nutrition and hydration, etc. would not have an affect as well. You are going on and on about EPO as if it is the only thing that can improve these speeds, yet the fact is that all the things I mention will improve speeds as well. As I said, you have made your decision and refuse to hear anything else…just like it’s obvious you refuse to hear me saying that these things and EPO caused faster speeds. Try opening your mind for a minute…it’s pretty cool.
i am very open minded… what mind blowing changes in nutrition, hydration, and training methods occurred in a 3 year period?
look at your sport- triathlon - as an example… nutrition, hydration, and training… they are all better, right? … let’s look at IMH records for the past 20 years… Interestingly, you** DONT** see massive time improvements or changes- you don’t see any changes at all… PNF times of 1988- beat every single other woman’s time since…! I guess IF YOU were HER coach- you would have given her your pointers on nutrition, hydration, training… and maybe a lighter bike, a more aerodynamic bike, etc… Your arguement is like full of holes. I think there’s less doping in triathlon- why? b/c there’s not as much money in the sport.
Same thing for Mark Allen and his time from 1989… no real improvements in overall times… and re: Luc… he trained with the Belgium cyclists regularly- and my personal opinion- he used the same ‘chemists’ as well…
lastly- I attach a letter written by Andy Hampsten- one of the best climber’s of his day- winner of Alp D Huez and Giro d Italia… just take a look at the bold marks- and he was a very, very top pro in the sport…
Women
Year Athlete Time Nationality 2006 Michellie Jones 9:18:31 
Australia 2005 Natascha Badmann 9:09:30 Switzerland 2004 Natascha Badmann 9:50:04 Switzerland 2003 Lori Bowden 9:11:55 
Canada 2002 Natascha Badmann 9:07:54 Switzerland 2001 Natascha Badmann Switzerland 2000 Natascha Badmann 9:26:17 Switzerland 1999 Lori Bowden 9:13:02 Canada 1998 Natascha Badmann 9:24:16 Switzerland 1997 Heather Fuhr 9:31:43 Canada 1996 Paula Newby-Fraser 9:06:49 
Zimbabwe 1995 Karen Smyers 9:16:46 United States 1994 Paula Newby-Fraser 9:20:14 Zimbabwe 1993 Paula Newby-Fraser 8:58:23 Zimbabwe 1992 Paula Newby-Fraser 8:55:28 Zimbabwe 1991 Paula Newby-Fraser 9:07:52 Zimbabwe 1990 Erin Baker 9:13:42 
New Zealand 1989 Paula Newby-Fraser 9:00:56 Zimbabwe 1988 Paula Newby-Fraser 9:01:01 Zimbabwe
Men Year Athlete Time Nationality 2006 Normann Stadler 8:11:56 Germany 2005 Faris Al-Sultan 8:14:17 Germany 2004 Normann Stadler 8:33:29 Germany 2003 Peter Reid 8:22:35 Canada 2002 Tim DeBoom 8:29:56 United States 2001 Tim DeBoom 8:31:18 United States 2000 Peter Reid 8:21:01 Canada 1999 Luc Van Lierde 8:17:17 
Belgium 1998 Peter Reid 8:24:20 Canada 1997 Thomas Hellriegel 8:33:01 Germany 1996 Luc Van Lierde 8:04:08 Belgium
first European winner and current course record holder 1995 Mark Allen 8:20:34 United States 1994 Greg Welch 8:20:27 Australia
first international winner, only male southern hemisphere winner 1993 Mark Allen 8:07:45 United States 1992 Mark Allen 8:09:08 United States 1991 Mark Allen 8:18:32 United States 1990 Mark Allen 8:28:17 United States 1989 Mark Allen 8:09:15 United States 1988 Scott Molina 8:31:00 United States 1987 Dave Scott 8:34:13 United States 1986 Dave Scott 8:28:37 United States
Dear fellow cyclists and cycling fans,
Like many of you, I have read Greg LeMond’s recent comments regarding doping in cycling and his interactions with Lance Armstrong. For those not up to speed, see this concise account of Greg’s statements in English.
The original complete text in French appears in Le Monde.
I admire Greg’s courage to speak his mind on the doping problems that still plague cycling. Like him, I feel that this problem is out of hand. Something needs to be done to clean it up, not only for the sake of the riders’ health, but also for the sake of returning our sport to the truths of human spirit, valor and talent.
The English version of the Eurosport article makes a huge point of Greg’s personal experience with Lance and the resulting conflict. Obviously, Lance and Greg have their own private relationship. While I know and respect both of these champions, having raced with both of them over the years, their personal interaction is none of my business. Speculating on conflict between the two only distracts from the bigger and more important issue of doping.
What I found more compelling was the complete Le Monde. text. It clearly shows Greg, who remains unquestionably the father of the modern era of American cycling champions, standing up and declaring that professional cycling has been and, regrettably, still is rotten with drugs.
Greg has put himself into personal and business difficulties by speaking out and getting involved with the issue of drugs in today’s cycling. Voluntarily placing himself in this position shows me honesty and bravery far beyond what most of us could muster. LeMond could instead follow the cycling world’s expectations for past champions and sit around “a fumer le pipe” (‘chilling’ in cycling slang) in silence, but, his legitimate concern for the health and lives of today’s athletes and future riders drives him to do what he can to return cycling to a healthy level. I want to see the same. Since the early 1990s both doping and the medical excesses placed upon riders’ health have gotten out of control.
Most of us will probably need to put aside our Tour time emotions and resist making the judgment that Greg is trying to gain something personal or is simply jealous of being eclipsed as the dominant American cyclist.
**I saw Greg race as a champion through the '80s, and into the ‘90s when the cycling community as a whole turned a blind eye towards doping and consciously ignored the onslaught of EPO in the peloton. **
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.
I had the honor of racing in eight Tours. Being happily retired, I can reflect on my small part in that race and enjoy seeing it motivate kids just as it did me. So like Greg LeMond, I cannot just sit idly by watching our sport continue to suffer from cheating. It’s time to tell the truth.
Why now? Remember that while the Tour de France is the pinnacle of cycling, it is also the leading force in fighting drugs in cycling. Right now, while public attention is still on the Tour, is a good time to address the problem of doping.
Dr. Michele Ferrari is known to have supported the use of EPO to increase his riders’ performances. In '94, while his riders dominated the Ardennes Classics, he publicly ridiculed making rules against EPO saying it was safe to use and should not be made illegal in cycling. I believe behavior like this and the use of these products should not be tolerated. Violators should receive meaningful bans from the sport, bans that significantly outweigh any perceived benefits.
Many aspiring racers have confronted drug use as they rose through the ranks. Unfortunately, their silent answer to this insanity is often to quit racing at this level. Otherwise, they risk succumbing to the conventional wisdom that “since everyone takes drugs to be competitive, you should too.” This must not continue to be the choice facing promising young racers.
Now, in his retirement, Greg LeMond is fighting to bring racing back to a natural level of honest riders racing to their limits and living a long life to talk about it. I am writing to support him in this fight.
Both Greg and I are involved with a junior racing team, so this matter continues to concern us as we support and urge kids to go as far as they can in the sport we love, both for their own personal rewards, and to keep cycling growing. It is irresponsible for us to encourage kids to race and potentially turn pro without doing all we can to change cycling back to a sport where they will not likely be asked to take drugs that could ultimately destroy their natural good health, their characters and their bodies.
Thanks for listening,
Andy Hampsten
Someone in this thread mentioned Armstrong as being genetically gifted. Here is an article from National Geographic in 2005 that goes in depth into that topic
The Science of Lance Armstrong: Born, and Built, to Win - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...50722_armstrong.html
It mentions some “unbelievable” changes that he went through, but whether that is due to nature, training or PED’s who knows. Either way, according to this article, he does have a genetic dispositions that make him a better cyclist than the average pro.
According to the Walsh book (and a closer look at Coyle’s numbers), there’s nothing to suggest that he’d be able to do what he did to other professional cyclists based on his physiological numbers. For example, Coyle tests his v02 max as in the low 70’s other than that *one test *when it was 81. Mid 70’s is what many teams *average *and to take Lance’s max at 81 (according to the author) would be akin to taking the best round a golfer scores out of 5 (from 94-99) and saying that round is his ability. The book also talks about Lance’s ability to generate less lactic acid–I don’t know the numbers but according to the book and Coyle’s studies, Lance was not above average enough to explain his results or dramatic change in performance from 95 to 99.
And as I said (and is mentioned in your article) while Lance’s body composition may have changed, he never lost those 20 pounds, and in the SCA deposition, he stated that he’d be happy to start the Tour in the mid 74’s(k) but never got down to 160 (lb).
Who knows, but I do like those Oakley LiveStrong Radars ;^)
For me it becomes painfully clear what was going on when the only people who could even hang on to lances wheels (basso, ullrich, etc) all get busted for doping themselves.
these were the elites of the elite, and lance was dropping them, and they were doping.
I just watched those clips on utube of Alpe de Huez. It really is insulting to people’s intelligence to think that Lance and most if not all of the riders in TDF were not on the sauce. Watching them sprint up the climbs verses riders 10+ years prior painfully being able to just spin up them is just ridiculous. I love the idea of Lance as a role model for Cancer survivors and all that, but give me a break. It is so plain to see with your own eyes.
i am very open minded… what mind blowing changes in nutrition, hydration, and training methods occurred in a 3 year period?
A few points:
- If you are so open minded then why do you dismiss anything other then doping out of hand?
- A three year period? You mentioned 1990-1991 and then used a ten year period of results from Alpe D’Huez.
- No mention of technology, the comments about your judgments on riders, on the reality of Tour tv, etc.?
- Do you mean things like power training, new sports nutrition studies and products, new hydration studies, etc.?
look at your sport- triathlon - as an example… nutrition, hydration, and training… they are all better, right? … let’s look at IMH records for the past 20 years… Interestingly, you** DONT** see massive time improvements or changes- you don’t see any changes at all… PNF times of 1988- beat every single other woman’s time since…! I guess IF YOU were HER coach- you would have given her your pointers on nutrition, hydration, training… and maybe a lighter bike, a more aerodynamic bike, etc… Your arguement is like full of holes. I think there’s less doping in triathlon- why? b/c there’s not as much money in the sport.
Same thing for Mark Allen and his time from 1989… no real improvements in overall times… and re: Luc… he trained with the Belgium cyclists regularly- and my personal opinion- he used the same ‘chemists’ as well…
Two points:
- Why do you post on a tri forum if you don’t claim it as your sport as well?
- Using your logic then we have to say that all triathletes have been doping since day one. See how stupid it sounds when you are closed minded?