What would a clean Lance have been like

?

2nd, 3rd or 4th

Slower…just another potential…

DickBarton – Member
Slower…just another potential…

POSTED 2 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST

+1

Poorer.

What would a clean Lance have been like

a question that Mrs Yunki often asks herself…

Are we leaving all the other dopers doped, or slowing them by a margin appropriate to the sophistication of their respective doping programmes?
All clean, probably up there somewhere but so many variables who knows, top 5, 10, 20 maybe?

Top 4 easily, the guy despite the drugs certainly had the motivation.

In that world, at that time, most were involved (wild accusation) so would suggest if you took the drugs out of the system back then, then there would be little difference in the top 15 or so, just fluctuations in skills in differing environments of GTour racing.

Read David Millar’s book. The old boys involved in racing believed doping could turn a club rider into a tour champion.

Was he clean pre cancer? Has this been discussed, as I believe he won the worlds before this.

The difficulty with this question is nobody actually knows who was doped and not. I don’t think it’s safe to assume anything either way about every single pro rider of this generation, so who can you compare him to in order to assess his performance. Even if every single one was doped, then it doesn’t mean they all had the same advantage. Each person will react differently to the next when looking at the advantages to be gained, so this confuses it further.

Depends if all the others were doping too doesn’t it

Think the report said he stopped taking GH when he got cancer.

a question that Mrs Yunki often asks herself…

Giggle-Giggle….Tee-Hee…. 😛

Pre his success he was minutes down on Indurain in the TT’s and he could not ride mountains for tofee. It is well documented.

Less of a loser

Still faster than anyone on here.

By all accounts he’d have just been a half decent pro – nowhere near the world beater he was whilst doping. He had no grand tour results to speak of pre-cancer, then suddenly started winning by minutes.

Edit: Oh and here’s that vid of Indurain sailing past him

A Strava champion for sure.

But yeah, Doping affects different riders differently, supposedly.

For example, one rider might have gained 10% performance for a given amount of drugs whereas another might have only gained 5% for the same amount.

Be a kick in the nads (pun intended?) if Lances ability was only improved by a few percent by taking drugs but I don’t reckon this was the case.

He was the best rider for years amongst a peleton of other dopers, so assuming he and the others all were clean, he would most likely be up there in the leading group I would have thought.

I still wouldn’t call him a loser. It seems he was definitely a cheat, but he still had to win those races amongst what were largely a group of other cheats – the main contenders anyway.

Lance has still won 7 Tours. How many of the Tour legends over the last century have been clean? Whether it was alcohol, strychnine, anphetamines, steroids etc.

Was Miguel Indurain ‘clean’ in the video clip though? 😉

He was the best rider for years amongst a peleton of other dopers, so assuming he and the others all were clean, he would most likely be up there in the leading group I would have thought.

They weren’t all doping the same though, the finance behind him and his team meant the science employed was a couple of years ahead of the rest of the peloton. And lets be clear, its not just him, his whole team were using drugs beyond the resources available to the rest, with the sole purpose of delivering him the TdF title.

Without it, he would have been just another also ran.

And will the other pro-teams of that era be investigated so thoroughly as Lance’s team… I doubt it. I’d surprised if his were the only team with such sophisticated methods to hide the doping.

By all accounts he’d have just been a half decent pro – nowhere near the world beater he was whilst doping. He had no grand tour results to speak of pre-cancer, then suddenly started winning by minutes.

Think you will find that his GC wins came from him loosing weight but not loosing power resulting in a better power to weight ratio.
He did win the World Championships before Cancer, he was hardly a nobody.

They weren’t all doping the same though, the finance behind him and his team meant the science employed was a couple of years ahead of the rest of the peloton. And lets be clear, its not just him, his whole team were using drugs beyond the resources available to the rest, with the sole purpose of delivering him the TdF title.

Without it, he would have been just another also ran.

Doubt that. The money involved might have been more about evading detection, rather than the actual drugs used. EPO is EPO.

You don’t win 7 grand tours (with or without doping) without being an incredible rider and an incredible leader.

Think you will find that his GC wins came from him loosing weight but not loosing power resulting in a better power to weight ratio.

That is one of the myths that has been debunked, not just now but years ago.

The other teams active from the early/ mid 90s on the whole were investigated – Cofidis, Telekom, none of the Spanish teams obviously, Festina, Le Groupement, Gewiss Ballan – the list goes on, or did all you guys only know about LaLa to the complete exclusion of everything else?

It’s actually starting to really grate with me, the way the Lance worshippers still cling to the pathetic myths and excuses. Just try reading the report and learn something instead of repeating his fantasy tweets and denials.

He’d have been like Charles Hawtrey. The weedy one out of the Carry On films.

Still a prick?

You don’t win 7 grand tours (with or without doping) without being an incredible rider

His palmares, let alone his Tdef performances pre cancer / 1997 don’t seem to indicate he was an incredible rider

The report and all those “past” drugs test seem to imply that his doping was well measured. while others where hitting 60% with the old EPO – well above the 50% cut off he seems to have stayed in the late 40’s.

So pretty dam handy i would say.
This “club rider to tour winner” talk is rubbish, when’s it happened?

His palmares, let alone his Tdef performances pre cancer / 1997 don’t seem to indicate he was an incredible rider

Well if being a World Champion doesn’t make you incredible I don’t know what does.

Cav is incredible but he is not going to win the Tour, suddenly become a climber and dominate TT.
Have a read of the winners
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCI_Road_World_Championships_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_road_race
very few have won any grand tour as they generally require different riders

Evans, LA, le Mond then back to hinault and Merckx

By all accounts he’d have just been a half decent pro – nowhere near the world beater he was whilst doping. He had no grand tour results to speak of pre-cancer, then suddenly started winning by minutes.

THIS- he was nowhere in actual Tours but a reasonable one day classic rider.

He was the best rider for years amongst a peleton of other dopers, so assuming he and the others all were clean, he would most likely be up there in the leading group I would have thought.

which makes the assumption that doping affects us all equally and the best rider still wins. This is just not true

He doped pre cancer if you believe the witnesses who were in the room with him when he was asked about it by doctors before commencing treatment.

He’d of probably had a few KOMs on Strava.

This is quite shocking

http://www.dopeology.org/

even Merckx tested positive 3 times and got chucked out of the giro

Pre his success he was minutes down on Indurain in the TT’s and he could not ride mountains for tofee. It is well documented.

Big Mig was a freak of nature though. Cycling Weekly put him throiugh a lab test recently and veen after many years of unstructured training and not riding over the winters he had VO2 numbers that would put him at the front of a national race purely down to his freaky rib cage.

As for the original question, impossible to say, but a loose assumption would be no change, it’s very true saying he might have been 10-15% better an other only 5% better on drugs, but there’s an equal chance of it being the other way arround.

The thing I thought about drugs and doping was that they don’t actually make an individual better than they can be off drugs, the drugs just enable them to exploit their full potential as they help the body in recovery so they can get in more training and recover better between competitions/stages. Without drugs he was still potentially capable of these performances, but the chances are he would have never been able to achieve these performances. I guess it is not unfeasible to suggest he would have probably grabbed at least one or two TDF’s if he and all the other competitors were clean too. However we’re lead to believe that he forced his team mates to use drugs, so why were they not able to beat him or be more competitive against him? Relative to them he was clearly a better rider, unless he just kept all the good drugs for himself.

Those who doubt how he could have transformed his performances overnight following cancer – well i’ve seen first hand how people can completely transform their lives and achieve truly incredible and sometimes unbelievable things when they’ve had a close brush with death – something like that can really motivate people to do amazing things.

If this is true (and its looking like it might be) then it surely throws into doubt all the TDF and big cycling champs of the past including your indurains and all the others as the drug testing programme has been shown to be beatable. Also, it seems impossible to me that with all the people that would have had to have been involved in this conspiracy that it has taken all this time for it to come out. Its a bit like the mood-landing conspiracies – generally people can’t keep secrets for very long.

when USADA say this is th biggest Sporting Fraud, do they mean it in the sporting or Dollar sense?
In terms of cash could be up there, although i guess we’ll never know about some of the betting scams.
But in a sporting sense? – East Germany, for starters.

I’m settling to the ideathat we might just have to accept that LA was the best in worst way, of a bad time.

Pre -war
The post war -speed era
Post speed- steriod/HGH era
Days of thunder(ing heart beats) EPO

Big gap that most have crossed.

Now.

Good insight into this in the Hamilton book, about how the team (including Lance) were way off the pace when they first came to Europe to race. Wasn’t until they started to dope that they got competitive.

Big Mig was a freak of nature though. Cycling Weekly put him throiugh a lab test recently and veen after many years of unstructured training and not riding over the winters he had VO2 numbers that would put him at the front of a national race purely down to his freaky rib cage.

Also tested positive

http://www.dopeology.org/people/Miguel_Indurain/

but a loose assumption would be no change, it’s very true saying he might have been 10-15% better an other only 5% better on drugs, but there’s an equal chance of it being the other way arround.

so you dont know but you have guessed it would have made no change 😕

The thing I thought about drugs and doping was that they don’t actually make an individual better than they can be off drugs,

Why do they call them performance enhancing drugs and why are the Tours slower now they dont? Why could LA not win without them etc
FFS that is exactly what they do