Lance's 2:46 Marathon a result of PEDs. Folks at cyclingnews suggest so.

Also I stupidly forgot that Clayton's WR and PR was 2:08 in 1969. Point still stands. 69.7 vo2 max. It's not the magic number you think it is. Try learning something.

Makes You Wonder wrote:

Frank Shorter's vo2 max tested at pretty much the same as Lances, and Shorter ran 2:10 like 40 years ago. Why is vo2 max even an issue in this argument?

Sorry my post got truncated because of the use of "smaller than" character. Anyway, why do you believe that Lance's VO2Max is really 82? He lied about everything, he'd even sell his kids and whore out his girlfriend if that saved his azz.

Imagine he tested to have a VO2Max of 60. Had he published that, they would have doubted him even more, so why not come up with a lie.

Bottom line: don't believe a single word or action Lance says or does.

Cycling guy wrote:

Sorry my post got truncated because of the use of "smaller than" character. Anyway, why do you believe that Lance's VO2Max is really 82? He lied about everything, he'd even sell his kids and whore out his girlfriend if that saved his azz.

Imagine he tested to have a VO2Max of 60. Had he published that, they would have doubted him even more, so why not come up with a lie.

Bottom line: don't believe a single word or action Lance says or does.

You are paranoid as hell. I absolutely believe his vo2 is 82 because that's believable and testable and not on him to find out and tell people. Stop drinking the crazy juice.

Makes You Wonder wrote:

You are paranoid as hell. I absolutely believe his vo2 is 82 because that's believable and testable and not on him to find out and tell people. Stop drinking the crazy juice.

You'd rather trust someone like Lance Armstrong than an anonymous poster on a message board?

Bullsheet. 2:46 is not a cardiovascular challenge, no drugs are necessary.

what I would say about Greg LeMond is that he had the moral compass to stop and wait for his teammate Bernard Hinault in the Tour de France when he could have won the tour then and there, and I do not recall him complaining at all when Hinault reneged on his own pledge to work for LeMond in a subsequent tour. But LeMond was clearly already better than Hinault when he was still working for him.

he also created a completely fictitious image/story that he was a super human freak whose body magically flushed out lactic acid so he basically never got tired. that was a complete lie. i do, however, think 82 is not unreasonable. drugs or no drugs, he still was an extremely gifted athlete. he wasn't doped to the gills when he was 17 and helping his mom pay rent with his prize money. 82 is a great number but it's not like it is extraordinary. 92 would be much more dubious.

quick draw mcgraw wrote:

he wasn't doped to the gills when he was 17

How do you know? His triathlon coach had a doping past (during the 1984 Olympics).

and helping his mom pay rent with his prize money.

Says who? His book? Then it must be true.

I'd rather trust that he wouldn't completely fabricate a lab-tested number that has ZERO bearing on his career (the way drugs would)...who the hell woudl bother making up an 82 vo2 max? If his was really lower, he too could point out examples of elite athletes & world record holders with lower scores...SO much more goes into performance than v02 max (read Noakes, or like anyone else). It's just an incredibly stupid thing for anyone, even a sociopath like Lance, to lie about. So yes, I "trust" him. Or, like, the lab that tested his vo2 max.

quick draw mcgraw wrote:

he wasn't doped to the gills when he was 17 and helping his mom pay rent with his prize money.

You have no idea when he was or wasn't doped. Just because you can't fathom it doesn't mean anything. Lots of people use performance-enhancing drugs at the high school level. Lots of people that are barely above average, and certainly have less to gain than "rent money". Needing rent money is a pretty strong incentive, actually.

Jon Ulm wrote:

Mr. Armstrong was supposedly around 185 pounds during the marathon at Boston. not certain if this is true. From the photos he appears to be much larger than anyone around him. It was seem impossible for anybody at that high a weight to run 2:46. It most likely was drug aided.

First off he did not run the 2:46 in Boston. I saw him in New York that year and he looked slim to me.

Secondly, I've run a 2:40 weighing in at 192 with no drugs and I'm nothing special.

Yeah I'll bet you were drafting a pack of 190/200 pounders the whole way...

otter wrote:

Secondly, I've run a 2:40 weighing in at 192 with no drugs and I'm nothing special.