Lance Armstrong on Joe Rogan's Podcast

Missionary position wrote:

Jonny, you're like a missionary that tries to convert a tribe of cannibals, fails and then circles back to the same village and acts surprised that the same guys don't want to buy what you're selling.

Have you considered becoming a Mormon?

I will get there eventually. It's going to take a few years. The problem you are refering to mainly applies to a few jaded, cynical old farts who probably aren't worth the time.

And I'm not as alone as you think. Not everyone is as ignorant as the old timers here.

Do you think that cyclists were still taking EPO after 2010? A few, yes.

My approach isn't reductionist at all. What you don't seem to realise is that I can't be expected to write out my entire training philosophy every time I post. So you don't know what it is. You are making your own reductionist assumptions and then projecting them onto me.

If you can't give me something more substantial to debate, then don't waste your time.

Silly Yawns wrote:

He was an awesome competitor, but he has every reason to believe that drugs played a significant role in his (and many other pro cyclists') success. You may want to note that he was also a very knowledgeable competitor - likely far more knowledgeable about the performance-enhancing effects of PEDs that 99.99% of us on these message boards.

Here's another Science of Sport link you might have used:

http://sportsscientists.com/2007/11/the-effect-of-epo-on-performance/

Huge increases in performance indicators as a result of EPO use.

yawn wrote:

I didn't post it. But I did see some of it yesterday. I think he was a fantastic athlete. To me the biggest shame, is the obsession everyone had and still has with drugs. So stupid. He was an awesome competitor. I am glad that people are starting to realise that.

I have read that 2007 page by Ross Tucker. It's very silly. He has done much better work than that. The claims made are ridiculous, they aren't his work he is much more aware than that. There is no point even debating them. Much better to discuss his other research.

livestrongerest wrote:

Very interesting to hear him talk off-the-cuff. Get a much better feel for the kind of dude he is. He sounds like such a sociopath.

I really enjoyed the podcast, thanks OP. To me Armstrong did not sound like a sociopath; he came accross as a pretty down to earth guy and caring father who was genuinely concerend about his family responsibilities and the wellbeing of his 5 children.

Maybe he is a reformed character or maybe I could be I missing something that gave you your opinion. He came across very well in the podcast yet he has done all the lying and bullying in the past so he could be just dangerously good at playing Mr Nice Guy when he has to.

Your post doen't make any sense. You talk about extra RBCs increasing efficiency (AeT and AnT) but you don't seem to realize that these supposed thresholds are controlled by the nervous system. The extra power that elite athletes have at a given metabolic level comes from better technique, better pedalling efficiency. This has nothing to do with 'better oxygen deliver' but with better biomechanics. You have not been able to conceptualize your knowledge of exercise physiology in the right way because it is not taught in the right way. It has been taught in a reductionist way, ignoring the fact that there is no movement without nerve impulse and that the brain controls efficiency of movement and thus power output, speed and endurance as well as recovery.

I agree that EPO is still being used by some athletes, especially if they know they won't be tested. But why are they using it? Because of the hype around it, and the belief that their rivals might be doing the same etc etc. All drug psychology.

Armstrong was not just another doper who happened to win big. If you really believe that, then you have no real insight into his natural ability.

The problem with your ideology is that you haven't had the right kind of emotional and psychological counselling/advice because those kinds of people were not involved in your life, nor you in theirs. But they do exist and they are just as powerful at enhancing your performance as any percieved drug effect.

visionary wrote:

livestrongerest wrote:

Very interesting to hear him talk off-the-cuff. Get a much better feel for the kind of dude he is. He sounds like such a sociopath.

I really enjoyed the podcast, thanks OP. To me Armstrong did not sound like a sociopath; he came accross as a pretty down to earth guy and caring father who was genuinely concerend about his family responsibilities and the wellbeing of his 5 children.

Maybe he is a reformed character or maybe I could be I missing something that gave you your opinion. He came across very well in the podcast yet he has done all the lying and bullying in the past so he could be just dangerously good at playing Mr Nice Guy when he has to.

Maybe? I was wondering just the same thing last night and who would make that comment on this thread?

Does Lance have a personality disorder? Is he antisocial?

I don't think so. He can be mellow Johnny or super aggressive, just like most Tour de France winners. He took the same drugs as his rivals, and he is being singled out as the ringleader of the doping culture, which is hypocritical BS.

Yes he is a master manipulator, a control freak. But it has to be said that contracts in the Peloton are very flimsy indeed and anyone can be hired or fired on very shady evidence. That wasn't just his way of working, Professional cycling is a very cutthroat business and always has been.

Is he genuinely sorry for the bullying and litigation? Maybe, what do you think?

i

Jonny, you really need some more material. Can you get some more? Could you do that?

The sudden increase of pedalling skill due to EPO is silly. They should give EPO to kids who are struggling to learn in school if it works like that.

yawn wrote:[/

What you don't seem to realise is that I can't be expected to write out my entire training philosophy every time I post. So you don't know what it is..

If you laid off spamming the boards with your silly argument endlessly and focused on writing out your philosophy once you will be much better off.

Why don't you try that?

yawn wrote:

I'm not J.R.

Mr Obvious, like most letsrun posters, you have no clue about what is going on out there in the world of cycling coaching. No clue, and no interest.

Yes. Nearly all (all?) the top riders were taking PEDs. But they're all dumb and just thought taking the drugs helped their racing.

But Yawn knows.

tired old statements wrote:

Jonny, you really need some more material. Can you get some more? Could you do that?

The sudden increase of pedalling skill due to EPO is silly. They should give EPO to kids who are struggling to learn in school if it works like that.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. You're completely missing the point. I'm saying that cycling just like running involves biomechanical skills, this has nothing to do with EPO.

Very thin book wrote:

yawn wrote:[/

What you don't seem to realise is that I can't be expected to write out my entire training philosophy every time I post. So you don't know what it is..

If you laid off spamming the boards with your silly argument endlessly and focused on writing out your philosophy once you will be much better off.

Why don't you try that?

What's the best way forward. I need to know how people react to this info and how to get it across. Just saying why don't you write a book on the subject or why don't you set up a training agency whatever, is not really helpful. I need some market research.

Dummier wrote:

yawn wrote:

I'm not J.R.

Mr Obvious, like most letsrun posters, you have no clue about what is going on out there in the world of cycling coaching. No clue, and no interest.

Yes. Nearly all (all?) the top riders were taking PEDs. But they're all dumb and just thought taking the drugs helped their racing.

But Yawn knows.

It was almost as if they had no choice. They were either in the doping clique and accepted or they were not and outcast.

Psychology. Obviously not a strong subject here.

Hyperbole. Lance was the best Tour de France rider in the entire history of the event. Just because you hate your job, and you despise the attention he received and still receives doesn't validate your claims that he would have been a nobody without the drugs.

He did what he was told. That made him a good employee until the whole house came tumbling down. The drugs didn't do jack schiddt for his fitness, that's the real craziness of the whole thing.

Both people in the 2005 and those in the 2011 sample were taking EPO, doing auto-transfusions, and taking a host of other PEDs as well. Therefore your conclusion that both groups had the same power outputs and therefore PEDS do not work is completely invalid. There is a reason real science requires control groups.

I'm not denying that some people do stuff. I think there was a lot of EPO around in 2005.

But you seem obsessed with the idea that to be an elite cyclist you have to dope or auto-transfuse.

This is not a scientifically sound idea. Real science involves testing hypotheses. Mine has been well tested. But you will deny this.

The simple fact of the matter is that biomechanical efficiency is the key to higher performance levels. You are fixated on the pseudoscientific 'bigger engine' model. Jack Daniels PhD showed that this is not a scientifically valid statement way back in the early 70s. He may lack the intent to state this the same way as me, but someone has to. Actually it's not just me, but thousands of other people, you are just unaware.

yawn wrote:

I'm not denying that some people do stuff. I think there was a lot of EPO around in 2005.

But you seem obsessed with the idea that to be an elite cyclist you have to dope or auto-transfuse.

This is not a scientifically sound idea. Real science involves testing hypotheses. Mine has been well tested. But you will deny this.

The simple fact of the matter is that biomechanical efficiency is the key to higher performance levels. You are fixated on the pseudoscientific 'bigger engine' model. Jack Daniels PhD showed that this is not a scientifically valid statement way back in the early 70s. He may lack the intent to state this the same way as me, but someone has to. Actually it's not just me, but thousands of other people, you are just unaware.

I am not making the claim that to be an elite cyclist you have to dope or auto-transfuse. It is possible that some elite cyclists are not doping.

I am merely calling you on your bullshit use of "evidence" in this thread. Your use of Ross Tucker's post to say that it proves your point is nonsense. It does no such thing. Are you continuing to stand by your statement? are you continuing to posit that the riders in the 2011 sample were not using PEDS? On what basis?

Real science involves intellectual honesty. You seem incapable of that.

Your hypothesis has been well tested? When I search google scholar for Yarn, or wellnow, or Jon Orange, or jono, I don't return any results??

Skillz. scientific. psuedoscientific.

skillz.

Do your research. Skillz.

eccentric.

skillz.

Skillz.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Real science involves intellectual honesty. You seem incapable of that.

Your hypothesis has been well tested? When I search google scholar for Yarn, or wellnow, or Jon Orange, or jono, I don't return any results??

What would you know about intellectual honesty? When I try to inform you of the importance of running economy, biomechanical efficiency, etc, you show your own intellectual dishonesty in claiming that this approach is reductionist, even though you are unaware of your own reductionist approach.

I am pointing out the flaw of the 'bigger engine' model and that continuous improvement is neural not metabolic.

You can't or won't engage in the debate. I believe that JD was right when he said that a marathon is run at 80% of VO2max and that the variance from elite runner to slow runner in negligable in this metabolic respect. So where does the improved economy come from? From the improvement in biomechanical skills.

To deny this is the real craziness. To continually give credence to the drug obsessive 'bigger engine' model or any such metabolic advancement is crazy. It's pure pseudoscience. Deal with it. Engage in the neuroscience or stop arguing.

You are disingenuous. You deliberately avoid this issues I raise.

Geez, this yawn guy is like having a Jehovah's Witness at your door every fifteen minutes in perpetuity.