It's amusing, but the people desperate to minimize the impact of real doping love to speculate about mechanical doping.
It's amusing, but the people desperate to minimize the impact of real doping love to speculate about mechanical doping.
detective billy mac wrote:
Lance was a very very good cyclist wrote:
Or the dope. It's about natural ability.
This is true. Lance was one of the best cyclists without doping. With epo, testosterone, and blood bags mid race we was unstoppable. While other teams were doping, postal had the most sophisticated program by far.
It's really not about the dope.
I know that's what you want to believe and you can't be educated about how the human body actually works, but there are people out there who do real science.
Nothing about the Lance saga would surprise me, but a couple thoughts . . .
1. The video is completely unconvincing, it doesn't appear he is pressing a button. Maybe signaling the follow car, or maybe just fussing with his shorts. There's no apparent change in his cadence/speed/effort level after the 'butt move'.
2. The best riders now are as good or better than he was in terms of w/kg/VAM/etc, so what are they doing? Maybe crispr-ing their genes, who knows. But I'm doubtful that Lance needed mechanical doping in addition to an amazing actual doping program to do what other riders are seemingly able to do now.
I would believe just about any credible method of cheating he was accused of. What was he doing on multiple occasions in the video? Scratching or starting a motor? The latter seems a more likely explanation.
Former runner turned bodybuilder wrote:
astro wrote:
Definitely not. Just good old fashioned doping.
During the "good old fashioned doping" of Armstrong's era there was an upper Hematocrit level of 50% - call it a blood doping speed limit so to speak. Riders were tested regularly and if you were over the limit (say 51%) you were parked for 2 weeks which essentially destroyed your chances of winning the Tour. Riders competing before the Hematocrit limit (pre-98) could boost as high as they wanted. Some riders, like 96 Tour winner Barnj Riis, jacked his Hct to around ~60% - hence the infamous nickname "Mr. 60%." Armstrong didn't have the benefit of boosting over 50%. Even if had a low baseline Hct as reported by some experts (low 40s), he's still increasing his Hct by only several points to keep it under 50.
His accelerations were too profound and dominating for supposedly blood doping under the 50 limit. He rode and dominating up the high mountains like the EPO monsters of the 90s. There was always something fishy about that as he made a mockery of the world's best climbers, who were also using EPO. So, I'm suspicious that he had a little motorized help in those 7 yrs of Tour domination he had. And Armstrong's mentality was to win at all costs - so I wouldn't put it past him..
This is very interesting from 1998:
https://cyclingtips.com/2017/01/hidden-motor-inventor-says-he-received-2-million-in-1998-for-exclusivity-deal/
I disagree. As much as he seems like a dirtbag for a multitude of reasons, he doped fair and square with the other dopers. This is not track and field which is pretty bad. This is professional cycling in the late 90s and early 2000s were pretty much the entire leaderboard was doping. People who are farther down in the standings doped just to be able to stay on the tour itself. Just to have a job as it were. Armstrong showed extreme promise throughout his career even when he wasn't doping. He changed his body, he really did put in all that work, and that's why, along with doping, he was able to win stages. He did not make a mockery of other Climbers on epo. Those were epic battles... Among cheaters. He was among the greatest riders of all time, all of whom are doping, you add a legendary work ethic, good coaching, great teammates who are also doping, and you can pull out some tour wins.
If nobody's doping you could certainly argue he would still have the same number of wins. And you could definitely argue that Greg lemond would have two more.
Lance was a very very good cyclist wrote:
detective billy mac wrote:
This is true. Lance was one of the best cyclists without doping. With epo, testosterone, and blood bags mid race we was unstoppable. While other teams were doping, postal had the most sophisticated program by far.
It's really not about the dope.
I know that's what you want to believe and you can't be educated about how the human body actually works, but there are people out there who do real science.
There are also people out there who do vague and unsubstantiated claims posted anonymously on running message boards.
I thought it was suspicious that he would occasionally pop a wheelie during the stages.
hedge fund manager wrote:
2. The best riders now are as good or better than he was in terms of w/kg/VAM/etc, so what are they doing? Maybe crispr-ing their genes, who knows. But I'm doubtful that Lance needed mechanical doping in addition to an amazing actual doping program to do what other riders are seemingly able to do now.
Yeah, this. If Lance needed a motor put up his #s then its odd that 22 year olds are matching his metrics.
It's probably just doping + better training + better equipment just like running.
There are rumors that Lance and USPS were climbing up assets so fast during certain stages that they had to apply their brakes to make it around corners.
So is this actually true? I can't myself possibly say.
But do I believe it's possible and do I believe this has happened before in pro-cycling? - this is what I say to anyone who says it's ridiculous.
Guys are willing to inject sh$t into themselves that could potentially kill them. They take stuff that could turn their blood into gravy (we all know the stories of teams having to wake up at 2am to ride on the trainers to keep their blood fluid). They take stuff that could make their freaking hearts explode. Richard Virenque once asked his masseuse to inject a vial of something called "time trial X" that he was given completely convinced he could not compete in the next days time trial without it (the masseuse ended up injected saline because he was so scared he might kill him having no idea what the substance was). Based on these realities, do you really think a pro cyclist has any issue sticking a motor in their bike?! If I had a choice - small motor that gives me an additional 30W for 30min on a climb or jab myself with something that might kill me I know what I'm doing.
And this is the thing not many people understand. They aren't turning their bikes into freaking e-bikes. You only need something that on the key climb of the day supplies you with 20-30 more watts for even a portion of the climb (30-40min) to make a huge difference. There are multiple devices that do this and they have existed for years. The Tour even started x-raying bikes a few years ago and they aren't doing this unless they believe there is a legit possibility this is/was happening.
Once again, I'm not saying this article on Lance is true but ask yourself knowing the lengths he went to to cheat and to destroy people who tried to expose him - is it beyond the realms of plausibility? Absolutely not.
If Lance had a motor in his bike - you probably would have heard about it from any of the dozen or so teammates who have come clean about the doping and cheating that went on. Especially the Andreus.
It's a bit funny how butthurt the French are about Lance. He's completely guilty, stripped of titles, disgraced, etc, yet they still are finding new things to accuse him of 10 years later!
Everyone else was doping, plenty of disgraced champions before and after him, but man are they upset that an AMERICAN did it better than everyone else :)
bigmig19 wrote:
Former runner turned bodybuilder wrote:
During the "good old fashioned doping" of Armstrong's era there was an upper Hematocrit level of 50% - call it a blood doping speed limit so to speak. Riders were tested regularly and if you were over the limit (say 51%) you were parked for 2 weeks which essentially destroyed your chances of winning the Tour. Riders competing before the Hematocrit limit (pre-98) could boost as high as they wanted. Some riders, like 96 Tour winner Barnj Riis, jacked his Hct to around ~60% - hence the infamous nickname "Mr. 60%." Armstrong didn't have the benefit of boosting over 50%. Even if had a low baseline Hct as reported by some experts (low 40s), he's still increasing his Hct by only several points to keep it under 50.
His accelerations were too profound and dominating for supposedly blood doping under the 50 limit. He rode and dominating up the high mountains like the EPO monsters of the 90s. There was always something fishy about that as he made a mockery of the world's best climbers, who were also using EPO. So, I'm suspicious that he had a little motorized help in those 7 yrs of Tour domination he had. And Armstrong's mentality was to win at all costs - so I wouldn't put it past him..
This is very interesting from 1998:
https://cyclingtips.com/2017/01/hidden-motor-inventor-says-he-received-2-million-in-1998-for-exclusivity-deal/I disagree. As much as he seems like a dirtbag for a multitude of reasons, he doped fair and square with the other dopers. This is not track and field which is pretty bad. This is professional cycling in the late 90s and early 2000s were pretty much the entire leaderboard was doping. People who are farther down in the standings doped just to be able to stay on the tour itself. Just to have a job as it were. Armstrong showed extreme promise throughout his career even when he wasn't doping. He changed his body, he really did put in all that work, and that's why, along with doping, he was able to win stages. He did not make a mockery of other Climbers on epo. Those were epic battles... Among cheaters. He was among the greatest riders of all time, all of whom are doping, you add a legendary work ethic, good coaching, great teammates who are also doping, and you can pull out some tour wins.
If nobody's doping you could certainly argue he would still have the same number of wins. And you could definitely argue that Greg lemond would have two more.
Too funny...you must be president of his fan club or something. Lol. He's not the greatest rider of all time - perhaps the greatest cheater of all time. 😉. Other than that shootout with Pantani on Mt. Vontoux in 2000, he pretty much made a mockery of the world best climbers by dropping them on summit finishes year after year as if they were going backwards.
The douchbag was a career doper - he evens admits at that presentation he gave at CU a few years ago that he doped when he won the 91 World Championships!. Lol. I don't think he knew what it was like to ride clean. And you're not going to dominate the Tour for 7 freaking years like he did when everyone else was doping and the Hct upper limit was set at 50%. Armstrong was up to something - either he was allowed to ride over the 50% limit or he used a motor, IMO.
https://youtu.be/M1GW0Q3HPYQAnd for those of you that idolize Armstrong and think he's so wonderful nowadays, here's one that had me LMAO so bad I almost strained an ab muscle. Armstrong giving a presentation at an anti-doping seminar back in July of 2007 titled "How can we prevent doping in pro sports?" 😂🤣🤣🤣😆
https://youtu.be/AG4odJP-ZuwHow long until the Kenyans start hiding these underneath their lycra?
If he did motor dope, are we to believe that Bobby Julich and Floyd Landis and other teammates who got screwed by him and hate his guts and would love to rat him out either didn't know about it or are keeping quiet?
Lance was not different than any other cyclist in that era. He was the best period.
But what most of the world didnot see was the TDF win of 2020. If you can find the finish of the last timetrail, you can find out why he won. He used mechanical doping. After that Pogacar finish he drives far to the back. In the corner of the vid you see somebody coming with a bike (that is stranges) and in front of the cameras and chaos he switch from bikes and drives back (on another bike why?) The man from his team walks away with his bike. Why? Because the original was electric, compare the time and watts. By far he had the fastest time on the climb. The watts he had to produce are almost unhuman or electric powered.
another casual observer2 wrote:
If Lance had a motor in his bike - you probably would have heard about it from any of the dozen or so teammates who have come clean about the doping and cheating that went on. Especially the Andreus.
Yeah possibly - it's also possible that as the unquestioned, iron-fist dictator of his teams - supported by Bruyneel that he had access to "stuff" others didn't or never knew about.
So it's pretty common knowledge (and also not unusual for the lead rider of a team) that Lance had his own dedicated mechanic that really could have been doing anything in secret with his bike. That doesn't corroborate the claim 100%, but its important.
I think the majority of us can't even imagine the lengths these guys would go to to cheat. The best book to read is Breaking the Chain by Willy Voet - the dude who got busted driving Festinas drugs across the French-Belgium border back in 98. The accounts in that book are borderline insane - the best ones for me are the stories of guys mid race riding next to team cars, sticking their asses through the back windows and getting amphetamine shots as they are still riding.
So again, I would say almost anything is plausible in this world, including keeping a small piece of equipment secret from a team if needed.
They've been saying that about Fabian Cancellara as well. Old news. He juiced (Lance), case closed.
bigmig19 wrote:
Former runner turned bodybuilder wrote:
During the "good old fashioned doping" of Armstrong's era there was an upper Hematocrit level of 50% - call it a blood doping speed limit so to speak. Riders were tested regularly and if you were over the limit (say 51%) you were parked for 2 weeks which essentially destroyed your chances of winning the Tour. Riders competing before the Hematocrit limit (pre-98) could boost as high as they wanted. Some riders, like 96 Tour winner Barnj Riis, jacked his Hct to around ~60% - hence the infamous nickname "Mr. 60%." Armstrong didn't have the benefit of boosting over 50%. Even if had a low baseline Hct as reported by some experts (low 40s), he's still increasing his Hct by only several points to keep it under 50.
His accelerations were too profound and dominating for supposedly blood doping under the 50 limit. He rode and dominating up the high mountains like the EPO monsters of the 90s. There was always something fishy about that as he made a mockery of the world's best climbers, who were also using EPO. So, I'm suspicious that he had a little motorized help in those 7 yrs of Tour domination he had. And Armstrong's mentality was to win at all costs - so I wouldn't put it past him..
This is very interesting from 1998:
https://cyclingtips.com/2017/01/hidden-motor-inventor-says-he-received-2-million-in-1998-for-exclusivity-deal/I disagree. As much as he seems like a dirtbag for a multitude of reasons, he doped fair and square with the other dopers. This is not track and field which is pretty bad. This is professional cycling in the late 90s and early 2000s were pretty much the entire leaderboard was doping. People who are farther down in the standings doped just to be able to stay on the tour itself. Just to have a job as it were. Armstrong showed extreme promise throughout his career even when he wasn't doping. He changed his body, he really did put in all that work, and that's why, along with doping, he was able to win stages. He did not make a mockery of other Climbers on epo. Those were epic battles... Among cheaters. He was among the greatest riders of all time, all of whom are doping, you add a legendary work ethic, good coaching, great teammates who are also doping, and you can pull out some tour wins.
If nobody's doping you could certainly argue he would still have the same number of wins. And you could definitely argue that Greg lemond would have two more.
Armstrong has admitted to doping from late 1995 on. However, there are credible allegations/anecdotes that he began doping well before his 92 wc victory.
By all indications, Lance doped as much as he could, as soon he could, for as long as he could. Spare me the what about Lance's work ethic blather.
A motor is a fundamentally different kind of cheating that is much harder to internally rationalize. I doubt it. What's next, runner using super shoes?