[ghisino]

I'm not sure many cyclists were clean back then.

i agree

and today?

do they climb and race significantly slower?

do they train less and participate to less events?

if the answers are "no", i guess not many cyclists are clean right now too...

[tomtom]

for the climbing and racing, the answer is yes. The average pace of the Peleton is down, and the rate people are climbing has dropped notably as well. From what I've read this is the most convincing evidence that widespread doping has ended/slowed in the last few years.
Some of the peak energy burn rates for the leaders on the climbs are similar, but they are just one day peaks. During the doping days these rates were sustained day after day.. (blood doping effects, impacts of doping on recovery etc..)

[Muenchener]

I'm not sure many cyclists were clean back then.

i agree

and today?

do they climb and race significantly slower?

Yes, see the links I posted a page or so back. For example: Alpe d'Huez hasn't been ridden in under 40 minutes since 2006, but was in every Tour of the decade before that.

do they train less and participate to less events?

if the answers are "no", i guess not many cyclists are clean right now too...

Seems to be strong evidence that they're cleaner than back then.

(TomTom beat me to it. See the Science of Sport blog for a lot more details)

[205Chris]

This idea that everyone being on drugs in cycling back in the day makes it ok is frankly laughable. He could have made a stand and bust the drugs game wide open, but he chose to go along with it and litigate against anyone who dared speak out.

Obviously I don't agree with the whole 'if everyone's on drugs then it's ok stance' but I think the idea that it would have been that easy to bust the game wide open is slightly naive.  We're not talking about one or two athletes here, we're talking about a whole peloton of riders who were doping with a very strong belief in the 'omerta'. If you knew all your team mates were doping would you really blow the whistle? The team you were riding for would probably fold and you'd be out of a job.

You only have to look at what happened to Simeoni back in 2004 when he took legal action against Armstrong after Armstrong questioned his testimony against the Texan's trainer Michele Ferrari (someone who now has a lifetime ban from sports for doping violations).

Simeoni was in a breakaway in the tour and posed no threat to the overall lead. Armstrong, leading the tour, singlehandedly chased the breakaway down and made it clear that unless Simeoni dropped back, the breakaway wouldn't be allowed to escape. The message was clear: make a stand against the status quo and you'll never win anything in your career.

Having read David Millar's book it seems pretty clear you had two options as a clean rider:

i. Make a stand in which case the peloton would make your life hell and you'd probably never win a race in your life (thereby ruining your own career)

ii. Keep the omerta in the peloton (but ride with the disadvantage that you knew others were doping)

Not surprisingly given the above options many riders chose to dope.

[tomtom]

Sadly true.. the quote from catch 22 comes to mind
"But what if everyone behaved like that?"
"well I'd be a damned fool not to join them"

[a dense loner]

U can't remove someone of their efforts of yrs gone by when everyone was doing the same thing.

The point being you have no way of knowing if they were all doing the same.

Strange I'm sure I read a quote a page or 2 back sayin 42 people out of the tour were caught later on. Must be mistaken. I'd lv all professional athletes to be drug free, but they're not. If they were companies wouldn't spend millions developing these drugs n the powers that be wouldn't spend millions on testing. There's the crux of it, it really doesn't matter what people think to the contrary cos it happens all the time n will continue to

[Stubbs]

If they were companies wouldn't spend millions developing these drugs n the powers that be wouldn't spend millions on testing.

None of these drugs have been formulated to make athletes better; they all have medical uses and are being misused by athletes.  e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erythropoietin#Medical_uses

[lukeh]

Surely with regards to Armstrong it is more than 'everyones doing it, so I will too'. Not only was he the leader of his team, but was effectively the leader of the peloton. That puts him into the position of enabler/pusher.

Whilst the idea of stripping awards from many years ago may not seem sporting, it is a deterrent to future riders. We will never know who was the best clean rider from that generation, but if punishing Armstrong leads to a cleaner peloton in the future then so be it.

[galpinos]

What so they all enable "drugs mode" and suddenly everyone's on a level playing field again? Ha ha ha ha.

This is a big point imho. From what I've read, which is probably from an anti-Lance viewpoint, Lance was at the forefront of the undetectable threashold. He wasn't just the best rider on drugs, he was the rider on the best drugs. He got the new and best stuff first, he distributed it across his team, was pally with the head of the UCI,  and even had his own drugs man on a scooter during races (if everything is to be believed). The idea that it's a level playing field if you're on drugs is laughable, as pointed out by Dave.

How many "journeymen" from that era were great riders who were just principled and clean?

[Lund]

What so they all enable "drugs mode" and suddenly everyone's on a level playing field again? Ha ha ha ha.

This is a big point imho. From what I've read, which is probably from an anti-Lance viewpoint, Lance was at the forefront of the undetectable threashold. He wasn't just the best rider on drugs, he was the rider on the best drugs. He got the new and best stuff first, he distributed it across his team, was pally with the head of the UCI,  and even had his own drugs man on a scooter during races (if everything is to be believed). The idea that it's a level playing field if you're on drugs is laughable, as pointed out by Dave.

How many "journeymen" from that era were great riders who were just principled and clean?

If they all enable drugs mode... then it's all about who's got the best drugs and the best doctor.

In my opinion, Armstrong was just as likely to be a shit cyclist on ace drugs.  If he'd been on the same gas as everyone else, there absolutely no evidence that he would still have won.  Why does this matter?  If right, it proves that the drugs field isn't level.  It's also important to kill the "I don't care, he was still the best" comment which is based on the dribblings of an EPO-crazed mind.

The biggest argument anyway against drugs mode... is that it kills cyclists.  Who aren't the brightest bunch, and just inject what they're told by doctor/armstrong/sponsor whatever.  Then they drop dead, a la simpson et. al.

I remember reading in some book or other a whilst back - the irish guys? - about him walking through a hotel at night and seeing cyclists doing pullups on doorframes to get their heart rate back up, as the blood was too thick and their heart rate monitor had woken them up in the middle of the night to keep them alive.

In summary... Armstrong?  He was supposed to be a clean athlete and a role model.  He's just a dick.

[SA Chris]

Still, the fame and success probably helped him pull Sheryl Crow, so probably worth it on the balance, as at least he can never be stripped of that.

[a dense loner]

I have no idea what planet u lot are on? Of course he was given the best drugs he was the best rider, why wud u give someone comin in 47th place the best stuff?
There is no such thing as a level playing field ever!
This starts when little johnny shows a bit more potential for football than someone else, when little daisy wins a beauty pageant for standing upright. It's all driven by ego, yours or someone else's

[Lund]

I have no idea what planet u lot are on? Of course he was given the best drugs he was the best rider, why wud u give someone comin in 47th place the best stuff?
There is no such thing as a level playing field ever!
This starts when little johnny shows a bit more potential for football than someone else, when little daisy wins a beauty pageant for standing upright. It's all driven by ego, yours or someone else's

Bobbins dense.  You're being dense.  Lance is famous for being shit before his post cancer comeback.  He even admits it in his book.

There's no possible reason to assume that the best rider would get the best dope.  In fact, the motivation is less for that rider, innit?

Let's take another.  Hmm, first doper I can think of... I know, Ben Johnson.  So, clearly, when on drugs he was the best.  1987, 1988, two world records on dope.  Boy was like a rocket when on roids.

In 84, when not on roids or on shitter ones he came 3rd.  His PB around then was the canadian record at 10.12 - clearly way behind Lewis even in 81.  So wikipedia tells me.

So Ben Johnson was on the best shit in 87, and 88 - but prior to that wasn't the best.  Or wasn't on dope.  But either way, you can't say he was the best.

None of that proves that, if you lined up all the sprinters, Johnson wouldn't be the best, if there weren't any on dope.   But the converse isn't necessarily true either.

All you can say is that Lance was the best cheater.

[tomtom]

All you can say is that Lance was the best cheater.

The most 'effective' cheater... the best ones don't get caught...

[Lund]

All you can say is that Lance was the best cheater.

The most 'effective' cheater... the best ones don't get caught...

THERE WAS NEVER A POSITIVE TEST



hahahahahahahaha

[abarro81]

I thought the best drug taker was the one having the most fun? I bet that wasn't the cyclists.

[a dense loner]

Lund what uve just said screams to me " when not on roids or on shitter ones he came 3rd" so what ure in fact saying is someone on better ones beat him. "clearly way behind Lewis" yes see my previous sentence.
The motivation is less for the best to do the best drugs? All I can say is we obviously view things differently, for which I'm sure ure grateful 

What I really want to know is where were u guys when lance was winning the tour every yr, i'll make a pretty broad statement now n say u were watching n cheering for lance winning cos it was a spectacle n good for the sport n he was a beast.
Obviously I feel a bit stupid now that millions of people watched a very poor rider win the tour every yr, the same guy who still has not failed a drugs test, the same guy who's terrible career has led to raising awareness of testicular cancer etc etc

[Stubbs]

Of course we weren't cheering for Lance, we're British, and as such only support plucky underdogs, not dominant arrogant jocks, especially american ones 

[tomtom]

I always thought (I've never met him so its only based on media) that Armstrong was a wanker. I am greatly in admiration of a man who overcame testicular cancer and became champion of his chosen sport. But he's still a wanker. A prize tool.

To clarify my second sentence - even if you strip the drugs away and assume he would be a mediocre peleton rider etc.. (pure guesswork) thats still some achievment having had very highly developed testicular cancer. I've read the wankers book. He's a wanker, but man that section of his life sounds grim and scary...

Heres another log to throw on the fire...

I am no physician, nor sports scientist but I think I can see  a difference in the physiology of Wiggins, Frome, Thingy-doublebarrelled-thing who won yesterday) and even Cav - compared to the 'beasts' back in the day.. More stick like than body builder.. Its also interesting that Cadel Evans body shape seems to have changed from 'willowy' to 'filled out' in the last 2-3 years. Hmm.. chinny recon....

[a dense loner]

Of course Stubbs, n if it's any conselation I totally disregarded your previous post as written by someone who still believes in fairies

[Stubbs]

My post about drugs?  Is my view incorrect, and if so could you point me to some reading regarding drugs formulated specifically for sports?

[webbo]

So Lance is famous for being shit before his post cancer comeback. Being the world champion is shit If only I could be that crap.

[Lund]

What I really want to know is where were u guys when lance was winning the tour every yr, i'll make a pretty broad statement now n say u were watching n cheering for lance winning cos it was a spectacle n good for the sport n he was a beast.

I was at uni, getting high and not watching sport...

[a dense loner]

What u want me to point to the title of such publications as "we will make billions of dollars, yen, pounds, out of enabling people to become fitter, faster, stronger, bigger by using the substances we will create for them even tho this practice is frowned upon and illegal"?
My search for this title came back with no hits so u must be right. I bow to your wisdom in these matters.
As we know roids came about cos of world war 2, the fact that these then got abused n other lengthy treaties I cud write only go to show how effective they were and how some people see opportunities to make money in anything. Not least the naivety of adoring fans of most sports across the globe

[a dense loner]

Obviously I don't know your background here Lund but I'll bet that whatever was getting u high wasn't the shittest stuff u cud get, or if u didn't have cash at the time when u did u got the better stuff?