mprelaw

What he was doing in those years was cortisone, testosterone, steroids and HGH. Not autologious blood doping and EPO. Those last two were the big game-changer, for both him and other good but not spectacular pros.

tagaproject6

Spain has the best beef. Ask Alberto.

merlinextraligh

A full program of EPO, steroids, and HGH could definitely make a rider 7 minutes faster over the course of a 3 week Tour.

Look at what's happened to climbing times in the TDF.

Pantani has the record up L'Alpe dHuez in 1997 (with no EPO controls) of 37 minutes 35 seconds. Armstrong has done 37'36" and 38'00" ( 2001 and 2004)

Then look how times have slowed, with more effective doping controls, and a test for EPO.

Contador 41'30" 2011, Hesjedal 43'12" 2011, Evans 41'46" 2008.

So a reasonable extrapolation is around at least 3-4 minutes on one climb. Over the course of the TDF that's huge.

Also, Armstrong rarely if ever had bad days. Without PED's and transfusions, he would have had bad days somewhere along the line in those TDF's that would have meant losing one or more of them just from an unfotunately timed bad day.

Angio Graham

Good point.

In major league baseball, total number of home runs is down almost 30% since they inacted their new testing and punishment program. Coincidence ? I think not.

.

Cat4Lifer

Jack around? I'm saying (and showing), very clearly again and again, Armstrong did show aptitude for climbing well before 1998. I do agree he wasn't considered a top climber by "experts" and I agree that he wasn't among the world's top pros in terms of climbing. If you don't have the time, then why are you responding? You have the time to bring up some unnamed and supposed experts that disagree with my opinion that he showed did indeed show an aptitude/an ability to climb, even though his results say otherwise.

My point: Armstrong did show an ability or "aptitude" to climb with top pros on some occasions pre-cancer; Armstrong doped throughout the majority, if not all, of his professional career; Lemond, a very vocal Armstrong critic, said that weight is of paramount importance to performance in the mountains; Lance did shed at least ten pounds of weight post cancer. Therefore, it is not terribly surprising that a lighter Armstrong, still dopingand working with the same doctor, would start preforming as he did.

Some believe it's the doping that made the difference -- they say but cannot show that his doping regimen was any better/more potent than the doping regimens of other dopers. Maybe that's the case, maybe his doping program was better, but there exists no known produced comparisons between his doping regimen and the doping regimens of other dopers to prove the veracity of that that claim, but people make it anyway.

What is clear to me: Lance doped before and doped after his cancer with the same doctor. Maybe it is his weight lost that tremendously helped his aptitude for climbing.

I don't claim to know, but I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility and I even think it more probable than he just had "better drugs than the rest of the dopers" that the increase in his performance post cancer was primarily due to his weight loss and more somewhat due to a more focused training program.

Cat4Lifer

Blood doping and EPO had been around since the 80s. I think it silly to think Lance wasn't doing what others were doing in the early and mid 90s

Cat4Lifer

So a doped up Lance was minutes faster than clean riders (Ulrich, Pantani, Mayo, Beloki, Zulle, and Basso)?

Jed19

Sure, blood doping and EPO had been around since the 80s, but if you look very carefully at where LA improved drastically from where he was at, it was in climbing and TT ( as somebody previously pointed out), and those two disciplines are where EPO was ruthlessly effective at affecting.

Coincidence? I think not.

And when you combine steroids, HGH et al with blood doping and EPO, well, the sky is the limit.

gsteinb

I'm going with 'most sophisticated doping program in the history of sports' meaning exactly that

https://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012...-doping-scheme


Google will turn up about a zillion links. It's the thrust of the USADA report as well.

That, and a significant weight loss, can lead to some pretty big gaps in ability. Still, seven minutes also factors in tactics and such. Sometimes once it's won folks are fighting one another for podium places.

Cat4Lifer

You're going with an opinion--yeah I got that already.
But what's not being quoted--what I haven't yet seen quoted is what proves the veracity of that claim

gsteinb

For the record I said if what you want to do is debate my use of the word aptitude I don't have time. Which you do, and I don't. So best of luck to you with it. Bottom line is those in the know agree that Armstrong's teams ran the most sophisticated doping period in the history of the sport. His moving from a marginal climber to a world class climber (read: a guy who can compete and win in the high mountains - hint none of those are on the east coast of the US) came after cancer when he began to work extensively with Ferrari. Yes it was coupled with weight loss, but it's unlikely given the lay of professional cycling that drugs didn't play a significant role.

Cat4Lifer

Yeah, poor Jan, Zuelle, Joseba, and Ivan.
Those non-doping riders never stood a chance

Cat4Lifer

You must be so happy to be in the know.
And I'm not debating your use of aptitude.
You went from saying he had "no aptitude" for climbing to saying he was a marginal climber.
We agree on that.

Jed19

First of all, everything I've read about EPO says it can be more effective for one rider than the other at exactly the same dosage. Secondly, LA had Ferrari, who has been acknowledged as a kind of doping genius. And he paid him fantastically, I understand,not to work with his rivals.

So, no matter what the other dopers were doing, it is quite possible that LA benefited tremendously more than his rivals and co-dopers.

gsteinb

Sigh. Actually I didn't really change saying anything. Most pros are at least marginal climbers. They can't finish races under the time limit otherwise. By saying he demonstrated no aptitude as a climber I was using climber in the elite mountain goat sense. I was comparing young Armstrong with the Armstrong he became. If it calms you down try 'Armstrong demonstrated no abilities racing in the high mountains.'

Commodus

This is a nonsense thread. The question posed can not be answered. It should have been locked/deleted/merged long ago.

Jed19

Methinks he knows what you are saying, but since it does not support his position, then the mischaracterisation.

bigfred 

Q: Did it?
A: We'll never know.

Q: Could it have?
A: Absolutely. Once you've caused the opposition to pop, there's no telling how much time you could put on them. We've all done it, or, had it done to us. How much time you take out of the competition depends upon them and what point they sit up. From a limiting losses point of view the weaker rider is usually better off shifting to their sustainable pace earlier rather than later. But, you never win races that way and maybe the guy in front is hurting worse than you and will let up soon. Keep thinking that too long and have him proove to be the stronger and you'll have nothing for finishing the day and loose even more time to him. Drive deep enough into the hole and it may be days before you recover.

But. It wasn't just Lance that was on the juice. It was a good chunk of his team and at least his lieutenants. Their ability to squash any threats and lead him up climbs was just as important a determiner in his overall lead. After all LA was racing against competition that may have had just as much personal pharmecutical advantage as he did, but lack the same team support and protection.

benajah

I'm slightly older than you, but like you, Lance winning the tour was what got me aware of road cycling as a competitive sport at all. I was already racing MTB and heavy into the cycling scene, but road cycling at all in any form where I grew up was still seen as some sort of enigmatic and esoteric thing that only the continental Europeans did on a large scale, and a few Americans who were really into it. You just did not see people on road bikes commonly in NC and GA in the 1990s when I was a teenager, occasionally, but it wasn't common. Granted this was pretty small-town America, but it brought awareness to a lot of America.
I grew up in Athens, GA where they have the Athens Twilight every year, and that was sort of this huge race one night a year where people on these crazy light bikes showed up, raced around downtown for a few hours, then disappeared and you didn't see another road bike till the race the next year.

Burr

.Wonder what Sharon Crow has to say about all this.

dstrong 

I figured out WAY TOO LATE that I should have organized a Confession Watching Party! Maybe just a drinking game...how drunk could you get if you drank when you heard:

"Everybody was doing it"
"Level playing field"
"I did not have sexual relations...." oops...wrong guy

What else should I listen for?

Homebrew01

You could listen for "cancer" and "live strong".. Those should get you drunk.

The xrtanormal clip is hilarious.

colombo357

Blood doping = nearly 7 watts per kg rather than 6 watts per kg for 1/2 to 1 hour.

Next question!

merlinextraligh

No, not my point. I'm simply saying that PEDs made more than 7 minute difference in speed.

My guess as I've said elsewhere, and I think you agreed with, is that Armstrong in a completely drug free field, still dominates his era, but wouldn't win 7 in a row, due to bad days being almost inevitable without transfusions.

bigfred 

Well. I was wrong. Yes, yes, yes.