Was Lance on any sort of drugs?
- 08-10-2006, 04:06 PM
- 08-10-2006, 05:19 PM
lets be serious, he was taking something. Sure he may have been on meds for his cancer etc, but you do not do what lance did unless you are both a genetic freak AND getting that extra 10% from that 110% right in the ass via a needle.
if not steroids, igf-1 or growth hormone without a doubt.
IMO it doesnt change the fact that he was the best in his time. After all, everyone else was doing it as well. In other words it WAS a level playing field.
- 08-10-2006, 07:39 PM
08-10-2006, 09:16 PM
most likely EPO, or something similar along with GH, igf-1. I think they all do it, he just did it BEST. That's why he hasn't been caught.
08-10-2006, 11:34 PM
08-10-2006, 11:54 PM
08-11-2006, 04:09 PM
I'm sure he was doing something, but I'm also sure everyone else was too - so yes, I think it's a fairly level playing field. Doesn't take away from any of his accomplishments in my eyes.
Look at the number of small idiots in the gym taking juice hoping that it will make up for laziness and a bad diet. Lance Armstrong is genetically gifted and very talented, and did not win solely by additional pharmacutical help in my opinion.
08-12-2006, 09:30 PM
Well said! Why is it that anytime someone achieves unbelievable feats we are all so jealous that we attack them? He's an incredible athlete and he was a friggin pin cushion during the tour, yet they found nothing? (trust me they were trying).Originally Posted by Rogue Drone
08-13-2006, 02:27 AM
It's not an attack on Lance really, as much as it is the rest of the sport and what one must do to level the playing field. Sure, they test everyone, but couldn't one still manipulate test levels to be within the upper range allowed?
08-13-2006, 03:11 AM
My personal feeling on the matter is, they should just make it legal, then everyone can make their choice, and all these stupid games would be over. Most will do whatever it takes, I would like to believe that some of these athletes are just that good, but when guys like Hamilton and Landis get caught it's hard to hold on to that faith. With Armstrong we'll never know for sure, he was a seriously gifted athlete regardless as was Lemond, but I just think we've got enough new names to drag around in the mud today.Originally Posted by NYhomeboy
08-13-2006, 08:15 PM
I ride with some pro cyclists, they all do it, the unlucky ones get caught. Granted, Lance is a hell of an athelete, but there's NO WAY IN HELL YOU RECOVER THAT FAST !!! I ride 1-200 miles a week in the summer and saturday, all I do is sleep. I'd love to think he did it naturally, but I know what 100 miles at 24-28 mph average does to me. I don't want to think what a ride at 28-32 mph would do to me. I might try a low dose test cycle next year during the summer to see what it's like for recovery.
ROB- 1488 miles ridden since April 4, 2006
08-13-2006, 10:44 PM
I'm with ya, when I was racing I was putting in 3-400miles a week, some of the more elite guys on our team would put at least 500+ a week and always be ready to go. Pro's are at another level, they pretty much live on the saddle, 150miles on flat is recovery for most of them. Your probably right though most them do use something.Originally Posted by GREENFEATHER
09-08-2006, 05:18 AM
I'm not saying he didn't, but with the scrutiny he was under - how does he get away with it? He was probably the most tested rider on the tour and they couldn't nail him even once!
I have to agree with an earlier post, if you want an even playing field, take down all the barriers, and that goes for any sport IMO. Let them do or take what they want and Darwin will take care of the rest from there. Until then the playing field will never be level because there will always be cheaters.
It's like NASCAR, if you really want to find the best car and driver on the track - get rid of all the restrictions. Until then, whoever is in the right place at the right time wins. 20 car pile-ups are cool though.
09-08-2006, 11:34 AM
Chemical enhancement is part of cycling. In cycling, it is recognized(quietly) and accepted(quietly).
Armstrong has amazing dedication, talent, and determination and none of those were given to him by chemical enhancement.
Hypothetically, one could give me all the training and drugs possible to make me the best cyclist I could be, and I would still be no where near Armstrong or any other top cyclist. My point, there is more to performance than simply using performance enhancers.
09-08-2006, 02:44 PM
If chemical enhancement was completely legal, I believe we would have some of the most exciting sporting events of ALL time. I would actually watch the olympics more.
Man Look at that sprinter go! Who woulda known crack could do that.
09-09-2006, 11:10 AM
09-09-2006, 11:54 AM
Now I believe you may be on Crack!! maybe 50% at best, I've known alot of pro althletes and of the ones I've known I'd say 10% were doing something illegal, but I've got a bleak outlook so I'll say 50%. Friggin 75%...no way!!Originally Posted by spatch
09-10-2006, 09:09 AM
I say who really cares! Your getting paided tons of cash to ride a bike, throw a ball etc... If you want to be a little stronger and faster, and NOT get caught, go for it! You only live once be the best you can be no matter what you have to do!
10-09-2006, 12:42 AM
well I wouldn't doubt that he used before he got cancer, as gh and igf potentiate any cells and make them grow faster, but afterwords could have been a different story....as he would have known that made his cancer arise??? so i'm still up in the air on this one
10-09-2006, 01:13 PM
90% of all riders juice. the ones that dont, suck. (in events that last weeks...you cant recover and ride hard every day unless your have a crit of high 40's and other goodies in your body)(olympic short track races are a different story) riders dont "hit the juice big time" that would cause muscle pumps, weight gain, and high blood pressure. kind of bad for a endurence guy huh? most of those guys use hgh, igf, small amounts of test suspension/topical lotion mixed with test, epo being the biggest, and other things none of you guys know about. Lance had access to the highest ranked "doctors" and to the newest and most integrative drugs. look at landis, he's still denying he ever took PEDs. believe what you want, but your stupid to over look facts and know very little about it in the first place, and say "he's clean"... some people want to believe in someone, and someone like armstrong is that superman someone.
look at it this way. he still was the most talented out of everyone and did bust his ass every single day. but all those guys at the very top do as well.
look at the facts, if you can find them, and then make your own EDUCATED decision about if he doped or not.
10-15-2006, 12:53 PM
: Clean or unclean natural or unnatural, its all semantics, how NATURAL is it to lift heavy amounts of steel with neither economic or self preservation as the reason? I agree with the idea of letting it all be accepted and lets see who comes out on top. Pro BB is the biggest farce there is, of course it looks absolutey badass to be that big and ripped but are those guys healthy, my 92 year old great aunt is probably healthier that guys on the verge of dehydration, starvation, liver problems etc etc. The colossal amount of time wasted in trying to prove who is "on" is pathetic. we all use supps ever pick a methyl anything off a tree?? I have never shot, butchered, and packed in my freezer 200 lbs of whey protein. Just my 2 cents no one is natural anymore, let it go.
10-16-2006, 08:14 PM
10-18-2006, 12:05 PM
10-18-2006, 04:58 PM
either or. they both help you recover. epo boosts blood along with many, many other things.
there both performance enhancers, but one actually is banned for a reason. becuase its going to help your performance in a unatural way. protein will help you recover from hard workouts.
its like bodybuilders. protein is very important for bb's, but steroids are what makes a pro.
10-18-2006, 05:21 PM
saying lance wasn't using EPO or other stuff i've never even heard of is like saying ronnie doesn't use gear
they ALL use it .. they have to in order to compete .. in the end it IS a level playing field since they all use it
10-23-2006, 06:44 PM
Isn't Lance on TRT?? He suffered from Testicular Cancer so i'm sure they removed his testes... that said, i'm sure his T levels are in the upper 1/3 of the range. How many guys his age will have T levels that high naturally?? I'm sure that was a big advantage for him...
10-24-2006, 04:22 AM
10-29-2006, 03:28 PM
I just like how he confessed at the ESPY's. My jaw dropped during the silence.
SporTech Matter » You Tube Tuesday - Lance Armstrong ESPY Monologue
Here's some facts to chew on.
He has an extremely high aerobic threshold and therefore can maintain a higher cadence (often 120 rpm) in a lower gear than his competitors, most noticeably in the time trials. This style is in direct contrast to previous champions (e.g. Jan Ullrich and Miguel Indurain) who used a high gear and brute strength to win time trials. It is believed that a high cadence results in less fatigue in the leg muscles than a lower cadence requiring more severe leg muscle contractions. Ultimately the cardiovascular system is worked to a greater extent with a high cadence than with a lower, more muscular cadence. Because the leg muscles are taxed less with a high cadence pedaling style, they recover faster and the efforts can be sustained for longer periods of time. Armstrong dedicated a significant portion of his training to developing and maintaining a very efficient high cadence style.
Rare athletic physical attributes
All top cyclists have excellent physical attributes. Armstrong is no exception, although in one way, he may be unusual even for an elite athlete. He is near but not at the top aerobically, having a VO2 Max of 83.8 mL/kg/min — much higher than the average person (40-50) but not as high as that of some other elite cyclists, such as Miguel Indurain (88.0, although reports exist that Indurain tested at 92-94) or Greg LeMond (92.5). His heart is 30 percent larger than average; however, an enlarged heart is a common trait for many other athletes. He has a resting heart rate of 32-34 beats per minute with a max heart rate at 201 bpm. Armstrong's most unusual attribute may be his low lactate levels. During intense training, the levels of most racers range from 12 μL/kg to as much as 20 μL/kg; Armstrong doesn't go above 6 μL/kg. The result is that less lactic acid accumulates in Armstrong's system, therefore it is possible that he feels less fatigue from severe efforts and this may contribute to his ability to sustain the same level of physical effort as other elite racers with less fatigue and faster recovery times. Some theorize that his high pedaling cadence is designed to take advantage of this low lactate level. In contrast, other cyclists — like Jan Ullrich — rely on their anaerobic capacity, pushing a larger gear at a lower rate. Further improvements in Armstrong's physical attributes and performance have been attributed to training induced increases in his muscular efficiency indicating changes in muscle myosin type.
11-10-2006, 01:33 AM
the low lacitc levels go along with he having 0 fast twitch muscle fiber. he's all slow twitch. he couldnt break a 60 second 400 if he wanted to. (running) over exadrated of course, but shows how he's built. those others might be able to output higher wattage on the bike, but lance can hold a steady pace for a longer time.
11-17-2006, 05:43 PM
genetic supremecy via the needle
for those of you who don't know what EPO does for the body check it out. all cyclist know that Lance's superhuman traits are all side effects of EPO. everyone is in denile because we want to believe. cycling is dirty and it's unfair to the ones that are clean. YES THERE ARE SOME CLEAN RACERS. they just never win because of cheatersOriginally Posted by Rogue Drone
11-18-2006, 12:55 PM
Originally Posted by Dredlockguy
I don't consider it cheating at all, they should use as well or they will lose like they are, PLAIN AND SIMPLE!
11-18-2006, 02:03 PM
Juicing does not make you a good athlete. You can't just juice and then say oh yeah by the way i'm goin to play football, baseball or even do a tour de france you have to have skills before juicing will help you do anything.
Just like juicing and lifting people think that its too hard so i'll juice to start and they end up no where, i see it at the gym i go to all the time. IMO i think they should just legalize it anyways cause most pro's juice anyways.
11-26-2006, 12:32 PM
I'm not even going to vote on this poll, because I don't like the way it was phrased.
I think realistically it's pretty likely that he was using something, but to have 1 of the 2 options as he was on juice "big time" is not really fair nor necessarily accurate
edit: Also I do not think it's right that all cyclists should have to take any exogenous substances to be able to truly compete -- if they choose not to. I am very much against the idea of mandatory drug tests and such (in school except in certain situations and in 99% of cases in the workplace), but it might be a decent idea for there to be a natural competition (complete with polygraph and urinalysis for athletes), similar to more strict natty bodybuilding shows, in addition to free-for-all events...
I admittedly know little about cycling, but implementing a similar system in basically all sporting events seems to make some sense to me. Also, like someone else mentioned, I'd personally be way more prone to watching all 'superhuman' athletes compete.
Last edited by pist; 11-26-2006 at 12:44 PM. Reason: to further elaborate
11-27-2006, 11:34 PM
Similar Forum Threads
- By getswole1910 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 5Last Post: 05-09-2011, 04:34 PM
- By soontobbeast in forum AnabolicsReplies: 0Last Post: 06-27-2010, 10:30 PM
- By Matt Skiba in forum SupplementsReplies: 10Last Post: 04-16-2008, 02:27 PM
- By diminuendo in forum General ChatReplies: 4Last Post: 03-04-2008, 02:34 PM
- By JordyRoc in forum General ChatReplies: 26Last Post: 07-26-2005, 10:59 PM