Do You Feel Weird Wearing Black/yellow Oakleys Now?

[Patient_Cero]

I've actually just finished watching the The Armstrong Lie documentary. Gotta say, the world outside of cycling was fooled by his lies. Fooled me and almost everyone else. I hate him even more now after watching that. I had looked up to him. He is one reason why I invested in a Trek bike many years ago and cycling became my main hobby and interest. He also made me interested in Oakley as I realized how cool those looked on him whenever he cycles around with them on. How ironic though is that I never got around to getting any of the Oakley Livestrong models...

I respect him for getting over the cancer he had, but i really really hate him now for all the lies he made with regards to doping. All those victories were nothing but a lie...

Fixed it for you. While you say his victories was a lie, keep in mind they didn't name an alternate for all seven years he was stripped for a reason.

I still wear mine without second thought, I was never any under impression that him or any of the top contenders he raced against were drug free during his career. Drugs have been a documented staple of professional cycling since the 50's and as long as there is fame and monetary reward in racing, this will never change.

 

[big bopper]

Fixed it for you. While you say his victories was a lie, keep in mind they didn't name an alternate for all seven years he was stripped for a reason.

I still wear mine without second thought, I was never any under impression that him or any of the top contenders he raced against were drug free during his career. Drugs have been a documented staple of professional cycling since the 50's and as long as there is fame and monetary reward in racing, this will never change.

The fact that the whole peloton was taking drugs doesn't level the playing field. A number of studies have shown that some athletes react better than others to performance enhancing substances.

Armstrong was basically the best cheat - in terms of his physiology and resources. Not to mention the number of careers he ruined along the way. Biggest prick cycling has ever seen.

 

[Frogskins]

Keep wearing em and tell folks ...

Lance sucks

but the Steelers rule ...

 

[Patient_Cero]

The fact that the whole peloton was taking drugs doesn't level the playing field. A number of studies have shown that some athletes react better than others to performance enhancing substances.

Armstrong was basically the best cheat - in terms of his physiology and resources. Not to mention the number of careers he ruined along the way. Biggest prick cycling has ever seen.

It doesn't, it just brought the existing talent gap back to pre-doping levels. Yes not everyone responds the same, and most of those reputable studies are also done on college volunteers and non-professional (or actively competing) athletes for obvious reasons (self-implication anyone?). Good luck getting the top 1% in their field to volunteer "for science" when they are still collecting a paycheck.

There is a much lower ceiling for the elite contenders in any endurance sport to bridge compared to a recreational or "semi-pro" level athlete. There is not 7 or 8's who are title contenders, there is 9.5's and 9.7's with little room for improvement. So their bodies "response" is going to maintain the pre-existing gap at worst and gain that .1 at best when it's all said and done. That is literally seconds and over 3 weeks and 3000+ miles there is no way they can afford to cycle whatever they're using continuously the entire race. It's a handful of stages at most, trying to avoid testing positive and overall endocrine system burnout and damage. Like I said two pages ago...

He had tons of natural ability, but so did many of his competitors. While they can make you a better athlete they aren't miracle pills/injections. You still have to train, eat and have the desire to push through the pain with the mindset that separates a professional from a recreational or weekend competitor. An athlete who is a 5 on a scale of 10 in performance may be a 7 at his/her very best with PED's. He will never be a 9 or a 10 to compete with the big boys/girls and this is where the average person mistakes how PED's work. Pro's who are already a 9 or a 10 take them to gain that .1% edge that often separates first and second in many sports.

Read more: Do you feel weird wearing black/yellow Oakleys now? | Page 3 | Oakley Forum

 

[big bopper]

It doesn't, it just brought the existing talent gap back to pre-doping levels. Yes not everyone responds the same, and most of those reputable studies are also done on college volunteers and non-professional (or actively competing) athletes for obvious reasons (self-implication anyone?). Good luck getting the top 1% in their field to volunteer "for science" when they are still collecting a paycheck.

It doesn't matter whether you undertake the tests on professional or amateur athletes. Everyone on the planet has a unique physiology that responds differently to different stimuli. Some respond better than others. Ergo, performance enhancing drugs cannot level the playing field.

There is a much lower ceiling for the elite contenders in any endurance sport to bridge compared to a recreational or "semi-pro" level athlete. There is not 7 or 8's who are title contenders, there is 9.5's and 9.7's with little room for improvement. So their bodies "response" is going to maintain the pre-existing gap at worst and gain that .1 at best when it's all said and done.

What you're describing here is the fine margins that are the definition of any elite sport. PED's replace that fine margin with the efficacy of a PED on a given athlete. As a result, PED's will have a disproportionate effect on the result of a given competition.

Forget the 7's and 8's for a moment. Here's what I mean: 2 athletes, both 9.5. Both take EPO. One responds better to it than the other and becomes a 9.7, the other a 9.6. The 9.7 wins through cheating.

That is literally seconds and over 3 weeks and 3000+ miles there is no way they can afford to cycle whatever they're using continuously the entire race. It's a handful of stages at most, trying to avoid testing positive and overall endocrine system burnout and damage. Like I said two pages ago...

I appreciate this sounds a little counter-intuitive, but the Tour isn't actually raced over 3 weeks and 3000+ miles. It's decided in one or two key moments, usually in a mountain stage. The margins here are incredibly fine just the same as they would be in a much shorter race.

Armstrong is actually a bit of an outlier in the debate really because the impact PED's had on his performance was so huge. Prior to the cancer treatment, he was a good rider but never considered to be Grand Tour Winning material. That's reflected in his palmares, a few stage wins, the odd classic but nothing special. Four Tour starts, three abandons and one 36th place.

Neither did he have the sort of VO2 Max that would suggest he would become the dominant rider of his generation. It was high, but not in the league of Hinault, Indurain, LeMond etc.

All of a sudden he's back after nearly dying of cancer less than 2 years prior, not only the strongest climber but the best time-trialler in the field, and wins 7 on the bounce. Like I said, a bit of an outlier but definitely the most grateful recipient of PED's.

 

[Patient_Cero]

It doesn't matter whether you undertake the tests on professional or amateur athletes. Everyone on the planet has a unique physiology that responds differently to different stimuli. Some respond better than others. Ergo, performance enhancing drugs cannot level the playing field.

This was addressed and not denied, again there is a glass ceiling of performance one can't breach, PED's or not. Your ability to bridge that distance from current performance to your max physiologically potential is substantially better on PED's (agreed) but at an elite performer levels, there is less of that gap to breach. Hence the amateur people show better in these studies because they have further to go to reach their ceiling.

This was not to imply the field was "leveled," only that the existing gap of performance was normalized because there is simply no room for real advantages to make one a superman over another at elite performance levels as a whole by contrast to these test subjects.

What you're describing here is the fine margins that are the definition of any elite sport. PED's replace that fine margin with the efficacy of a PED on a given athlete. As a result, PED's will have a disproportionate effect on the result of a given competition.

Again, if two athletes are both using and the margin of gain difference is negligible all you did is maintain the gap of preexisting performance between the two athletes.

Forget the 7's and 8's for a moment. Here's what I mean: 2 athletes, both 9.5. Both take EPO. One responds better to it than the other and becomes a 9.7, the other a 9.6. The 9.7 wins through cheating.

That's assuming your have competitors of equal ability pre-enhancement. Good luck with finding that outside of a controlled sample in a lab.

I appreciate this sounds a little counter-intuitive, but the Tour isn't actually raced over 3 weeks and 3000+ miles. It's decided in one or two key moments, usually in a mountain stage. The margins here are incredibly fine just the same as they would be in a much shorter race.

You are neglecting the "team" apsect in those claims and the more importatn individual's mental strength. Regarding the individual, technically it is since the physiological degrading of the body from exposure to the continued race and recovery conditions and the increased endocrine response to any "supplements" they may be on compared to their rivals. Doping not withstanding, you are faced with the athlete you were prior. Either you have it or you don't at that time. Again the actual winning was addressed at the "handful of stages" they could dope; maintaining a continuous cycle for the entire time was addressed as impossible.

Armstrong is actually a bit of an outlier in the debate really because the impact PED's had on his performance was so huge. Prior to the cancer treatment, he was a good rider but never considered to be Grand Tour Winning material. That's reflected in his palmares, a few stage wins, the odd classic but nothing special. Four Tour starts, three abandons and one 36th place.

Maturity and team had a lot of influence on this as did race schedule. He became a one-trick pony and a Tour De France specialist by ignoring other tours and classics after his recovery. He dictated a schedule that made him a Tour specialist while his competitors continued to grind themselves with full schedules because they didn't make the money he did to race at leisure.

Neither did he have the sort of VO2 Max that would suggest he would become the dominant rider of his generation. It was high, but not in the league of Hinault, Indurain, LeMond etc.

He was crushing guys 10-15 years his senior as a triathlete in legit competitions long before he could afford a quality doping program. He may have not had the text book stats on paper or at the start of his career, but to say as an athlete he didn't have substantial natural talent would be reaching.

He learned to capitalize on any shortcomings as a bike rider when he compromised with a lesser schedule to stay fresher than his competitors, best everything money could buy and a good "supplement program" was secondary to maintain his advantages. The quality of his challengers and their teams also faded substantially in contrast to his first entries into the tour, you aren't winning without a support staff no matter what you're taking.

All of a sudden he's back after nearly dying of cancer less than 2 years prior, not only the strongest climber but the best time-trialer in the field, and wins 7 on the bounce. Like I said, a bit of an outlier but definitely the most grateful recipient of PED's.

Look at the field as awhole during that time, again he became a specialist doing a fraction of races in contrast to his rivals schedules. The PED's were definitely a factor, but they didn't make him superman. Ullrich and Beloki were the only real names of significances aside from flashes here and there during his reign as TDF champion. Surprise-surprise look who got popped with a history of doping, which probably didn't start overnight. Odds are Ullrich's results in '96 and '97 were at a benefit from something other than eating at the local organic farmers market. So when he faced Armstrong him and his team were simply not as good. Drugs not a factor, since they both got busted, you are again defaulting to the rider they were without them. Armstrong 1st, Ullrich (and others) 2nd; on or off anything extra.

 

[big bopper]

Again, if two athletes are both using and the margin of gain difference is negligible all you did is maintain the gap of preexisting performance between the two athletes.

If we agree that all athletes react differently to a given stimuli, by definition this can't happen. It's making the assumption they react equally and is the contradiction that undermines everything else.

In terms of Armstrong himself, it's conjecture on both our parts really. We'll never know. Recent greats of the Tour (Merckx, Hinault, LeMond) were on the podium or winning outright from the first attempt. Indurain is the outlier in this respect, but at least he did improve his result year on year.

 

[Patient_Cero]

If we agree that all athletes react differently to a given stimuli, by definition this can't happen. It's making the assumption they react equally and is the contradiction that undermines everything else.

In terms of Armstrong himself, it's conjecture on both our parts really. We'll never know. Recent greats of the Tour (Merckx, Hinault, LeMond) were on the podium or winning outright from the first attempt. Indurain is the outlier in this respect, but at least he did improve his result year on year.

I will concede there is just so many variables to rule out, without the complete truth from he and his competitors alike, it's a lot of speculation.
This man was also a documented freak in lung capacity and his overall cardiac system as well. I don't see his multiple Giro/TDF simultaneous wins being duplicated anytime soon. That was some great racing watching him in the TT.
Thanks for the spirited debate.

 

[big bopper]

Thanks for the spirited debate.

Likewise. It's never going to be anything else when it comes to Armstrong!! Don't think he won the Giro though?

 

[Patient_Cero]

Likewise. It's never going to be anything else when it comes to Armstrong!! Don't think he won the Giro though?

Lance, no he only rode the Giro in '09 that I can recall. I was talking about Indurain in my last statement of that post the entire time.