I read the new Walsh’s book last night. It wasnt a bad read and it was definitly informing and even sad at some points (the openning story especially) about how tough the lives of pro cyclists are. However, I see some major contraditions in the logic of the author that I would like to discuss. The essense of his arguments in the book is summarized below, and lets assume that each point is investigated and has 100% credible evidences to back it up.
(A) Lance was an average in the pro field of the grand tour, especailly in the mountain stages, and it is not likely that anything but drug consumption can explain his dramatical post-cancer improvements. This is based on Ashendon’s and WADA research. so basically lack of consistency between his 99 results and previous results
(B) Lance confessed to two doctors (Never identified), in presence of a handfull of people, in a hospital room back in 95, that he had used a variety of performance enhancing drugs. Frankie Andreu and his Wife, and the Oakly rep were Walsh’s sources of this hospital room incident. This is highlighted as one of the newly revealed evidences in the book.
(C) Testing positive for using EPO during 1999 tour. He accuses Lance that he won 99 tour on EPO.
Okay, here are my concerns assuming (just for the sake of assumption) that all 3 points made by the author are true.
1- If (B) is true, then Lance had been a dopper even before cancer so nothing had changed for him and therefore how can EPO and other drugs be credited for his performance improvements ? EPO was well known and widely used even before Lance did his first Tour and if he admitted using it in the hospital room, he had given this weapon a try, why it didn’t work in 94-95 and then it suddenly did wonders in 99 ?
2- If (B) is true, and if the allegations of Walsh trying to relate Lance’s testicular cancer to abuse of banned performance enhancing drugs is also true, how likely is it that someone goes back to the same shit which had pushed him to nearly the edge of death and hanged him there for a year? It’s not likely that any sane person touches fire for the second time after getting burnt once. Shouldn’t he have been the first person being concerned about doping and his cancer if he had been a doper ?
3- (A) questions the consistency of Lance’s 99 Tour with the previous ones and (C) makes allegations about 99 Tour. Ashendon tries to say that science doesn’t predict such improvements without performance enhancing drugs. The fact is, those improvements for whatever reason did happen and consistently continued for seven years, so if drugs were the cause, then he MUST have cheated for every single tour he won afterwards. He repeated those performances over and over again, unless EPO once used, changes the athlete for ever and its improvments are permanent, it is not likely that he had cheated all the time. His Olympics results, although he didn’t win was not bad either, and there has been much tougher drug tests for that event, the man had improved, admit that!
4- such performances should have made all the authorities more vigilinant about this athlete. It is like one theif stealing from the same bank 7 nights in a row. How incompetent should the guardians of that bank be not be able to catch him or even detect him.
5- lets assume Lance was dopped, we know that Ulrich was dopped and so was Basso. Still Lance won, now how do we justify the advantage of the winner to two other riders, knowing that all 3 of them were doped to the fullest ? He repeatedly says that the Peleton was too fast in 99, so that means everyone was dopped, and then he suggests that Lance’s advantage to others was because of doping! Duh you just said everone was dopped, how can that be an advantage ??
I am NOT a Lance fanboy by any means and I am not saying that he raced clean. I am simply as agnostic as before about this whole thing after reading Walsh’s book.