Cycling Doping Fallacies
thenewleafjournal.com
thenewleafjournal.com
> To be sure, Mr. Armstrong brought much of his disparate treatment on himself.
Perhaps history, but I think modernity has been far too kind to Mr. Armstrong. I'm floored that Lance Armstrong is still given a degree of celebrity and room as a public figure, and still more that he can make money off of that. That his celebrity and accolades were obtained fraudulently and all the while he openly and literally tried to destroy the lives and reputations of those who said as much stand in stark contrast to the space he is given today.
Not just "tried", he completely destroyed a couple of journalists' careers.
This is not something that should ever be forgiven.
Important to remember that when they took Armstrong’s trophies away, the next person who hadn’t yet been caught doping finished 10th. During that era of cycling, 87% of top 10 finishers tested positive for doping at least once.
https://www.businessinsider.com/lance-armstrong-doping-tour-...
That doesn’t excuse his doping, of course. It just means that at the time doping was a baseline requirement for competing at the top levels of cycling.
To a great extent, that was the direct fault of Lance Armstrong. He was the chief enforcer of the code of silence around doping. 1998 could have been a turning point for cycling after the Festina affair, but Armstrong scuppered any chance of that; where others saw the shame of a sport in turmoil, Armstrong saw opportunity.
Armstrong's comeback after cancer was a story that sponsors loved, he was the first American to be a serious yellow jersey prospect for nearly a decade, so he brought an unprecedented amount of money into the sport. Armstrong effectively became too big to fail, ruthlessly dominating the sport around him. When riders spoke out, he had the power to make them outcasts. When journalists tried to reveal the truth, he had the resources to silence them in court.
The bitterness that many in the cycling community feel towards Armstrong isn't really about the doping or the stolen yellow jerseys - it's about all the lives that he ruined in the process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christophe_Bassons#1999_Tour
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filippo_Simeoni#Feud_with_Lanc...
I agree, and for cheating in a sport Mr. Armstrong should be stripped of those awards given for such feats and no other judgement outside of that need be applied. However, Mr. Armstrong did not simply cheat; he actively and openly sought to destroy the lives and reputations of those who said otherwise. THAT was not a baseline requirement for competing at the top levels. For those actions outside of cycling he should be stripped of the celebrity and accolades he was given outside of cycling as well.
I guess he gets to keep the celebrity because he was the most successful American cyclist. America number one and all that :)
(I’m not a american so I find that attitude silly but very noticeable)
That is the great American cyclist people should be admiring.
https://velo.outsideonline.com/road/walsh-on-lemond-enduring...
the other is being a raging asshole who was outspoken against doping, published multiple books professing how clean he was and how all the doping rumours were just people out to get him, claimed the whole country of france was dishonest, accused his competitors of doping, accused other cyclists who he didn't even race against of doping... all while he was not only pumping himself full of drugs to win races, but also running his team's doping program and pushing his teammates to risk their own health by taking performance enhancing drugs.
the second part of this is what he doesn't deserve any forgiveness for.
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/212873/the-secret-r...
1. "More than anything I'm just really proud...proud I didn't quit...with no support or anything."
1. Go to the link https://peterattiamd.com/lancearmstrong/
2. At the bottom "Watch Podcast on Youtube"
3. Click "More" on the Description field
4. It will expand
5. Scroll down past the field to Chapters
6. Scroll past that to "Explore the Podcast"
7. You will see a section titled "Transcript"
8. Click "Show Transcript"
9. A dialog box will open on the right
10. Use Cmd-F on Mac or Ctrl-F on Windows/Linux to get your browser's Find in Page functionality
11. Type in "proud"
12. You'll find it quite quickly past the 2 hour mark
Here is a good recent interview with LeMond that delves into the Armstrong era:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xq5PQvBFvI
Remember that Trek dropped LeMond's bike line because he was speaking out about the cheating.
Another recent interview of Armstrong with a sympathetic Bill Maher:
People like Allen Lim who made millions off books and supplements. Lim almost certainly knew what was going on.
If you buy Skratch products you're directly benefiting people who stood right next to Armstrong.
2) That said, 7 in a row is still incredible. While he had a few incidents, he was always able to recover and never had an injury or illness that knocked him out. If Roglic could say the same, he'd probably have won at least 2 Tours if not three
3) Of course they're still all doping. WvA winning on Ventoux... Pogacar winning Tours de France and Flanders? Pas normal
4) Speaking of all still doping, the ongoing involvement of former dopers really goes against a stated desire for clean racing. Inigo san Milan making bones with his "zone 2" bullshit...dude was team doctor for Saunier Duval. University of Colorado should be embarrassed
5) all that said...who cares? The NFL barely tests because who wants to watch 1950's football? Same with cycling. I'd rather see van der Poel do inhuman things. Cadel Evans era was boring
That being said, the NFL already chews through athletes anyway so maybe they've already silently decided "football[0] is just inherently doped now".
[0] American football
There is a lot of prestige and a lot of wealthy people who play golf.
The same type of person who are obsessed with cycling instead will dope at a crazy level.
So no doubt the pros for whom millions are on the line, have their little helpers.
How does doping make cycling a more interesting sport? I'm a mediocre fan, but Armstrong winning every year was boring. I would think that most fans like to see battles on climbs, attacks, etc... Doping makes you fastre, but whether it takes 45 or 42 minutes to do a certain climbs doesn't matter.
Also, if somebody is giving their 99.9% to the effort it doesn't matter what the objective results are, the effort should be respected regardless. This kind of competitiveness goes directly against all good that sports can and should bring into healthy society.
Luckily there are plenty of sports where money is scarce and folks do it mostly for the love of sport itself.
Even Cadel Evans had some connections to the likes of Michele Ferrari (Armstrong's own doping doc).
Except for rise of Peter Sagan.
The rampant doping in other sports reflects an unwillingness to learn the lessons that cycling learned the hard way. Armstrong never failed a drugs test, because the tests were a joke. The biological passport isn't a magic bullet, but - when seriously enforced - it places hard limits on what dopers can get away with, no matter how devious they are.
Most sports are in denial, because they don't want to endure the painful process of actually rooting out the drug cheats. They have weak, ineffectual anti-doping programmes that are trivial to circumvent, then imagine themselves to be clean because of the low rate of positive tests.
The amount of money our governments waste on stadiums and financial incentives for sportsball teams is already ridiculous, it should at least not be completely fraudulent.
There is another article on the front page today about how the right amount of fraud is not zero. Align the incentives and doping will decline, and enforcement becomes less critical.
What makes you think that "Bread and Games" is no longer relevant today? It was an effective way to keep the masses under control 2000 years ago, and it's possibly still very cost-effective today.
If someone eats lots of potatoes and that gives them the energy to perform well at soccer, their performance was certainly "enhanced" by a "substance", but nobody would care.
The psychological aspects have possibly been more dangerous than the chemicals,
https://www.vice.com/en/article/xdpbnd/he-just-wanted-to-tak...
How is that not a negative physical effect?
The ban on doping dates from 1967, I believe, when British cyclist Tommy Simpson dropped dead from his bike during the Tour de France from having taken too many drugs (in combination with alcohol, too - truly these were different times).
The problem is, are we ok with people burning out their bodies in their 20s? And ending up dead or with horrific side effects that torture them for the rest of their lives?
And how much agency do some of these people have in their late teens early 20s when they start doing these drugs? Are we just allowing their parents and governments to put crazy things in their bodies, effectively ruining their futures, so that they can win?
The drugs used in cycling are extremely dangerous. Dozens of cyclists have died from doping, and those are just the ones we know about. Look up a documentary about Marco Pantani if you want to see the horrific effects of doping. He wrecked his body to the point where he couldn't sleep for long periods without risking a heart attack. He had to cycle at night on a stationary bike to stay alive. Sadly he passed away at only 34.
If we adopt this system where we just let people dope as they wish, we're signing their death warrant. No better than watching gladiators fight to the death.
edit: and it seems pointless to "solve" the problem of different genetics, because genetics would also influence how you reacted to PEDs. It's just adding a thing.
Cycling is about endurance and power output. If you remove 'genes and training plan' you are left with dice roll. If anything I would remove team radios [0].
[0] Like when Anna Kiesenhofer won in Tokio.
Needless to say it is a pure dystopia.
OTOH bodybuilding (the part people care about) and some strength sports allow PEDs. Some people do die young from steroid abuse, but not a lot of top dogs.
(Google first suggested Weston Super Mare, a UK semi-pro football club but I don’t think that’s right).
Lance had a naturally low hematocrit for a road cyclist, which made him respond disproportionately strongly to EPO. He’d have been mediocre off the sauce in a clean field. The end.
In a multi-stage race like the Tour, yes. He was phenomenal for a single day race.
https://web.archive.org/web/20240105023309/https://nitter.no...
Took me a very very long time to make sense of the chart.
Watts/kg up, minutes over which that power output was sustained to the right.
White points are Vingegaard climbs in the past, yellow points are Vingegaard climbs in 2022, pink points are other cyclists.
The yellow and white curves are just trend lines? They seem to just be distracting.
And Riis's climb of Hautacam in 1996 is "off the charts" by being very high and to the right.
https://sportsscientists.com/2009/08/performance-analysis-a-...
There's a really interesting cultural divide in that respect. In the heartlands of road cycling it was long viewed as a sport like boxing, a way for tough kids from bad neighbourhoods to make something of themselves. Like boxing, many of the sponsors and promoters were from the same sort of background - businessmen with opaque arrangements and friends in low places. The revenues brought in by the new global audience of middle-class, middle-aged men in lycra has professionalised and legitimised the sport to a significant extent, but there's still a strong undercurrent of the old days and the old ways.
Standing outside of that cultural context, the glamour is much more apparent than the grit. Roubaix looks quite scenic from a helicopter, but it's one of the poorest towns in France.
You can't buy the engine for professional cyclists. Even though they were doping, people like Armstong are still individuals with insanely high VO2max levels, beyond anything you could achieve through training alone (i.e. you need genetic good luck too).
So I am not sure where you see the similarities with F1 ...
See lance stroll (not saying he has no talent, but the gap between someone in the top 10% and top 1% of aptitude is large)
While I am a firm advocate for sports and physical activity at a personal level, my perspective shifts when it comes to high-level sports competitions. They often leave me feeling perplexed and disheartened, making me question whether I'm missing something that others see in them. More often than not, instead of inspiration or entertainment, I perceive underlying horror and abuse.
Are you sure about that? That goes completely against everything I've seen, and I come from an area known for high performance athletes. So much so that I used to eat lunch in highschool with someone who would go on to compete in the Olympics.
I associate sports, and especially their pursuit at a high level, with a high socio-economic background. Only the rich can afford the gym memberships, travel, gear(heh), time and energy to pursue sports. Every single Millennial I know who is serious about sports came from an upper-middle class or better background. 0 exceptions. I laugh hard about sports scholarships being really just a kickback for the rich. Every person who got one in my highschool class came from a family rich enough to put them through multiple camps a year, private trainers, fancy equipment. They were going to college either way.
Meanwhile, I like running and lifting weights and almost every older person in my blue collar network thinks it's stupid and I should work outside if I want to get exercise.
Counterpoint: Rich people still end up with Heroin addictions.
From what I've seen, doping is almost irresistible if you start down the path of high performance and have the cash to support it. People who are doping don't think they are destroying their body, they think they are unlocking their true potential. This is doubly true if you have enough money to hire a professional team to monitor/regulate your PEDs.
My uncle was president of a national road cycling federation. He had been involved with cycling teams, professional and amateur, since the 50s. He never raced himself, but many people wanted to be his friends: My grandmother owned a pharmacy, and he had access to get anything he wanted out of said pharmacy. So I'd hear the stories over dinner, or as we were following the peloton on stages that were nearby. He'd provide "pharmacological support" not just to racers alone, but team managers. He was more important in the 60s and 70s, when testing was really bad, and the substances racers would need were almost entirely things you'd get at the pharmacy counter. As doping became more professionalized, there was more use for specialized doctors, and things you couldn't just get straight from the pharmacy supplies, but contact higher up in the drug supply chain would still be helpful getting more exotic things.
Eventually he got caught: He was in the news as the police detained him and a few lower-tier racers. But since this wasn't, say, Movistar or Visma-Lease getting caught, it wasn't in every news feed, but it's someone that had been helping doping for decades.
It might be too much to say that everyone riding the Vuelta or the Tour for the last 50 years was definitely doping, but I'd expect that it's far more than 50-50. People don't keep up with top talent that is doing EPO and blood transfusions by just eating a lot of pasta for breakfast.
Obviously true, since a wide variety of responses will occur for any medical intervention, and doping is an extremely powerful one.
There is still no real testing in US sports, nor any soccer/football league. They all have their programs, but they are all urine tests. Remember that cycling in the 90's couldn't catch people using a blood test and had to eventually rely on a series of blood tests and variances in levels. These urine tests (which are practically announced to the players) are laughable.
These leagues should be paying cycling for the cover it has given them over the years.
> I do not think it follows from Mr. Armstrong having been stronger than other cheaters while he himself was cheating that he would have been the strongest clean cyclist if everyone was clean.
1. The athlete's baseline performance (ie would they be fast clean?)
2. How well the athlete's body responds to the effects of doping
You cannot say "they were fast doped so they must be fast clean" -- they might just have a unusually positive reaction to EPO.