Don’t put words in my mouth. I never said they were clean but we know that they didn’t have EPO. Go to youtube and watch the 1989 Tour. It’s like they are riding in slow motion compared to the Armstrong/Ullrich/Pantani era.
So I listened to the podcast til the end and yes, he mentioned briefly that accusation of using a motor, but I think this is really a kind of conspiracy theory. However Lance states that EPO gave him 10% margin. He estimated that on a particular 30 minutes time trial he was able to average 500W and said that without EPO he would be able to make 450W, which is still a lot for a lay person like me, but probably not enough to be a superman like Armstrong was back in the day.
1 Like
Can anyone enlighten me very briefly on the different benefits of the various substances he used?
For instance I thought EPO had more to do with recovery and being able to perform those wattages day in and out.
Testosterone instead should help increase raw power?
Given Armstrong’s proven track record of lying and twisting the narrative to suit himself I would place very little confidence in his estimates!
6 Likes
Very basically, epo increases red blood cell concentration. More RBC’s, more oxygen carrying capacity, mo powa. Lump the anabolics into one category, they increase ability to grow/strengthen muscle. Combined, you have stronger muscles that perform longer.
It’s all a fine line though, too many rbc’s, blood can become too viscous and doesn’t flow well. Too many anabolics, muscle grows/strengthens, the tendons attaching them to the bone don’t, at best you get bad tendonitis, at worst, they tear.
3 Likes
Testosterone helps with recovery and muscle growth.
EPO simply stimulates the production of red blood cells, so essentially vastly improved cardio. Blood thick with the extra red blood cells.
Drugs and sports have a long history and that includes cycling.
There’s a memorial to Tommy Simpson on Mont Ventoux that’s considered a pilgrimage site.
Does that mean amphetamines and alcohol are okay as long as you don’t kill yourself?
If EPO doping had been available in the sixties would some pros have used it?
It’s fun to review golfers who really started to struggle after PGA instituted an anti-doping policy. Middle of 2008, btw.
1 Like
Even a cursory glance at the history of cycling gives a definitive “yes” to this question! Pro cyclists (and pros and amateurs in every other sport for that matter) have shown time and time again that they will use any form of cheating that offers measurable advantage and a reasonable chance of not getting caught.
And the same would 100% have been true of Armstrong if motor doping was viable when he was racing and he thought he could get away with it.
3 Likes
Just FYI for those interested…Marinol (prescription THC) is Schedule II. Percocet is also Schedule II. So one is not more or less legal than the other.
Heroine and Marijuana are federally both Schedule I & here is where I will agree that it is absurd to say the dangers associated with recreational use of Marijuana are similar to those associated with recreational use of Heroine.
3 Likes
This is a bit of a false analogy…Percocet is not “legal” in that you can just pop into a store and grab a vial. It requires a Rx from a doctor.
FWIW, in 38 states, medical marijuana is on the same level as Percocet (i.e. requiring a Rx) and it is completely legal in 21 (while Percocet is not in any state).
1 Like
So my lasik and Percocet/weed analogies are slightly off topic for the discussion, but I still think it raises a good philosophical question on cheating. Obviously, no reasonable person would take issue with getting corrective vision surgery, but at its core, it’s kinda the same thing. Whether it’s eye surgery or injecting drugs, you’re changing your own body for a specific goal. One legal, one not. Who decides where the line is drawn for what’s legal and what’s not? It’s like that PITA billboard with animals lined up and the question “where do you draw the line between food and pet?”
If everyone is doping, are you cheating by doping too or are you leveling the playing field? It’s easy for me to say these guys are cheaters and destructive to sport, but I’ve also never been in a position of feeding a family based on my performance in a bike, so I’m nothing more than an armchair quarterback here… I’d like to believe I wouldn’t…
Still need to listen to the interview but if it’s anything like any other one he’s done, I pretty much know how it plays out…
2 Likes
I think a better example is the use of altitude tents…an artificial means to generate additional RBC similar to the effect of EPO.
IMO, altitude tents are squarely in the a grey area…you can naturally achieve a similar result by simply traveling to altitude and following regimen norms for “train low, sleep high”.
Or you can use EPO and boost your RBC count that way, using an artificial means.
Tents, IMO, are in between those two options…part artificial and part natural.
1 Like
The bodies who govern the sport. So UCI, WADA, maybe the IOC.
Yes, still cheating. Not everybody cheats, plenty of riders either took the decision to not pursue a career in cycling once it became apparent they would be expected to dope (I know several who were promising youngsters in the 90s and walked away from the sport at that time for exactly this reason) or stay in the sport and do the best they can clean. I’ve never had to ride a bike to feed my family (I’m about 100 watts short unfortunately!), but I do work to feed my family and on a number of occasions in my career I have refused to do things I believed to be wrong (and which in a few cases would arguably have been illegal or at least could have got me fired) even though I they would likely have benefited me. Don’t see how cycling is any different, everybody knows what the rules are when they sign up.
8 Likes
Holy cow, imagine getting an extra ~1W/kg on your FTP. I would go from struggling to hold onto the front pack to solo break from 50k out.
If I am not mistaken, in the interview Lance is saying that his salary after the cancer treatment was somewhat $200,000/year. That’s more than enough to feed a family. His UCI points made him millions on top of that.
Fair point! Can’t argue with that!
2 Likes
To me, the “everyone was doping” argument for Lance doesn’t really matter. Lance was an ass for doping. So were a lot of his competition.
Where Lance stands out from most of the pack is that he was (and continues to be) a completely horrible human being for taking advantage of others and for lying to people to benefit himself financially. Kind of like all the athletes and actors who do commercials for things like Bitcoin and Reverse Mortgages targeted at the elderly.
21 Likes
You Nailed it PBASE. Lance went out of his way to destroy people and has done not one thing to make it right!
True legend! Greg Lemond!
6 Likes
You’re also changing your own body for a specific goal by training. Changing one’s body is not the benchmark to measure whether one is cheating or not. Indeed, if this were the benchmark, using a motor would not be cheating. Cheating is a function of whether a rule is broken or not.
For me, what is considered cheating is not a philosophical question. There are rules to competition. The person running the event/creator of the competition sets the rules. Breaking them is cheating. In theory, the UCI could create a rule that carbohydrates are no longer allowed during races. Using carbs would then be cheating.
Whether a rule is a good rule is more of a philosophical question. If I were in charge; here is what I would do with respect to drugs:
- Does it provide a meaningful performance improvement?
- Is it safe at all levels of competition?
- Is there potential for abuse?
- Can tests differentiate between abuse and normal use?
- is there a safe alternative that can give the same results?
Here is my reasoning: Individuals should not have to put themselves at risk for negative health outcomes to be competitive in a sport.
10 Likes