HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Anti-Doping Agency charge... » Reply #18
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Reply #18


Response to demwing (Reply #17)

Sat Jun 30, 2012, 10:21 AM

18. True, there is no definitive proof in this incident.

It is possible that Tyler Hamilton is lying and that Lance really just donated $125,000 to the governing body of cycling because he is a generous guy. But the fact that there is no proof doesn't mean it's not evidence. There is no single smoking gun against Lance Armstrong. Instead, there is a pretty large body of circumstantial evidence, which, considered jointly, in my opinion, is overwhelming.

Like I said, to me perhaps the most important piece of evidence is that he dominated the sport during a time when doping was rampant. The idea that if you really work hard, you don't need to use PEDs is simply a myth. What the top riders do is both work incredibly hard and also use PEDs. Doping makes an enormous difference, and it is basically impossible to beat a field of doped world-class riders without doping yourself.

Here is a discussion on how helpful EPO is in cycling and other endurance sports.
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/11/effect-of-epo-on-performance-who.html
So can you win clean? As much as I'd like to think so, when you have this situation where a guy finishing in the top 10 is using drugs and being beaten by minutes on a mountain climb, I find it difficult to believe that physiologically, the margins can be that large. I believe that the NATURAL, physiological difference between riders is tiny - maybe 1% separates a champion from tenth place. So take a drug that improves performance by, let's be conservative and say 5%, and that mid-packer still can't win the race, then you have to wonder about the guy who is winning...?

This study clearly shows that EPO works. I'd extend that to say that any practice that increases the body's ability to carry O2 will work - so the same goes for blood doping. If they work, and work by the sort of margins we seem to be talking here - tens of percent, then can one gifted, unique individual dominate the sport? I think not.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 27 replies Author Time Post
UnrepentantLiberal Jun 2012 OP
russspeakeasy Jun 2012 #1
Ken Burch Jun 2012 #3
bahrbearian Jun 2012 #27
Ken Burch Jun 2012 #2
Grassy Knoll Jun 2012 #4
UnrepentantLiberal Jun 2012 #5
rocktivity Jun 2012 #6
joshcryer Jun 2012 #9
boppers Jun 2012 #7
Ken Burch Jun 2012 #8
joshcryer Jun 2012 #10
Ken Burch Jun 2012 #12
joshcryer Jun 2012 #13
Ken Burch Jun 2012 #14
joshcryer Jun 2012 #15
obamanut2012 Jun 2012 #22
joshcryer Jun 2012 #11
DanTex Jun 2012 #16
demwing Jun 2012 #17
LineLineLineLineNew Reply True, there is no definitive proof in this incident.
DanTex Jun 2012 #18
demwing Jun 2012 #19
demwing Jun 2012 #20
DanTex Jun 2012 #21
demwing Jun 2012 #23
DanTex Jun 2012 #25
demwing Jun 2012 #26
Ken Burch Jun 2012 #24
Please login to view edit histories.