Did Armstrong effectively win "fairly" after all?
Discussion
According to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/06/29/lanc... it looks like there's no evidence that EPO actually works.
It would certainly make for an interesting philosophical debate if it turns out he and other riders were taking a substance which actually inferred no benefit except a placebo effect.
If further investigations were to categorically prove that there were no performance enhancing effects from any of the stuff Armstrong and others took, should their stripped titles be restored because even though they thought they were gaining an unfair advantage, they actually weren't, or should the sanctions stand because they were trying to cheat, even though they weren't gaining that unfair advantage?
It would certainly make for an interesting philosophical debate if it turns out he and other riders were taking a substance which actually inferred no benefit except a placebo effect.
If further investigations were to categorically prove that there were no performance enhancing effects from any of the stuff Armstrong and others took, should their stripped titles be restored because even though they thought they were gaining an unfair advantage, they actually weren't, or should the sanctions stand because they were trying to cheat, even though they weren't gaining that unfair advantage?
I'm not a scientist but unless that article is missing huge amounts of detail, it sounds like a poor test. Testing two different groups of participants over one climb tells you nothing about the relative fitness or performance of those individuals so the fact there wasn't much difference in their results is meaningless.
For me, the efficacy of doping is shown in the results at the time it was most prevalent. Race times kept falling, records were broken and teams and individuals with previously lacklustre performance suddenly produced incredible wins. All down to placebo effect? I don't think so.
The only argument for Armstrong winning 'fairly' is that most of his competitors were doped to the eyeballs too.
For me, the efficacy of doping is shown in the results at the time it was most prevalent. Race times kept falling, records were broken and teams and individuals with previously lacklustre performance suddenly produced incredible wins. All down to placebo effect? I don't think so.
The only argument for Armstrong winning 'fairly' is that most of his competitors were doped to the eyeballs too.
It is my understanding that a lot of the benefit is with enhanced recovery and being able to perform at the same level day after day.
I found this quite an interesting read:
I found this quite an interesting read:
journo said:
After the EPO kicked in, I rode a 200-miler and I felt strong, fresh, ready to hammer. The next day I easily could have ridden another 200.
https://www.outsideonline.com/1924306/drug-testEdited by jesusbuiltmycar on Friday 30th June 09:13
I like the final statement about all the stuff he's taking being useless, clearly ignoring the endless number of studies on the affects of testosterone on athletic performance.
I've competed in sports for many years and have seen with my own eyes the dramatic difference GH and Testosterone can have on performance, the GH mainly for its healing properties but when people use additional testosterone they without doubt become faster and stronger
I've competed in sports for many years and have seen with my own eyes the dramatic difference GH and Testosterone can have on performance, the GH mainly for its healing properties but when people use additional testosterone they without doubt become faster and stronger
I suspect you're all absolutely right in this instance. I was more interested in the abstract question than actual history.
To look at it another way, if a coach gives an athlete a completely inert, harmless pill and tells him it's a new, impossible to trace performance enhancing drug, is that cheating?
The athlete thinks he's taking something dodgy, but he's not. Any performance increase he would gain would've come purely from placebo effect. Should he be banned for trying to cheat? Should the coach be banned for morally dubious attempts to create an advantage for his athlete? Or should they be allowed to do it, as they've not actually used a banned substance?
To look at it another way, if a coach gives an athlete a completely inert, harmless pill and tells him it's a new, impossible to trace performance enhancing drug, is that cheating?
The athlete thinks he's taking something dodgy, but he's not. Any performance increase he would gain would've come purely from placebo effect. Should he be banned for trying to cheat? Should the coach be banned for morally dubious attempts to create an advantage for his athlete? Or should they be allowed to do it, as they've not actually used a banned substance?
Kermit power said:
I suspect you're all absolutely right in this instance. I was more interested in the abstract question than actual history.
To look at it another way, if a coach gives an athlete a completely inert, harmless pill and tells him it's a new, impossible to trace performance enhancing drug, is that cheating?
The athlete thinks he's taking something dodgy, but he's not. Any performance increase he would gain would've come purely from placebo effect. Should he be banned for trying to cheat? Should the coach be banned for morally dubious attempts to create an advantage for his athlete? Or should they be allowed to do it, as they've not actually used a banned substance?
In that particular example, the athlete IS cheating, in my book at least. He knows he is taking something, and he knows it is illegal, to gain a performance advantage.To look at it another way, if a coach gives an athlete a completely inert, harmless pill and tells him it's a new, impossible to trace performance enhancing drug, is that cheating?
The athlete thinks he's taking something dodgy, but he's not. Any performance increase he would gain would've come purely from placebo effect. Should he be banned for trying to cheat? Should the coach be banned for morally dubious attempts to create an advantage for his athlete? Or should they be allowed to do it, as they've not actually used a banned substance?
He has broken the ethical code that should be the cornerstone of all sport, professional or otherwise. For me, that's the bigger crime.
louiebaby said:
Kermit power said:
I suspect you're all absolutely right in this instance. I was more interested in the abstract question than actual history.
To look at it another way, if a coach gives an athlete a completely inert, harmless pill and tells him it's a new, impossible to trace performance enhancing drug, is that cheating?
The athlete thinks he's taking something dodgy, but he's not. Any performance increase he would gain would've come purely from placebo effect. Should he be banned for trying to cheat? Should the coach be banned for morally dubious attempts to create an advantage for his athlete? Or should they be allowed to do it, as they've not actually used a banned substance?
In that particular example, the athlete IS cheating, in my book at least. He knows he is taking something, and he knows it is illegal, to gain a performance advantage.To look at it another way, if a coach gives an athlete a completely inert, harmless pill and tells him it's a new, impossible to trace performance enhancing drug, is that cheating?
The athlete thinks he's taking something dodgy, but he's not. Any performance increase he would gain would've come purely from placebo effect. Should he be banned for trying to cheat? Should the coach be banned for morally dubious attempts to create an advantage for his athlete? Or should they be allowed to do it, as they've not actually used a banned substance?
He has broken the ethical code that should be the cornerstone of all sport, professional or otherwise. For me, that's the bigger crime.
Loads of athletes take all sorts of legal substances because they think they're enhancing their performance, and in some cases they'll be right, but I suspect that there's also a significant placebo effect in much of that as well. The only difference between that and my theoretical situation is that the athlete thinks the substance he is taking is illegal.
In other words, should someone be sanctioned because they think they're cheating, or only if they actually are cheating?
Kermit power said:
In other words, should someone be sanctioned because they think they're cheating, or only if they actually are cheating?
In my ideal world, seen through rose tinted spectacles, no one would need sanctioning, because even the thought of cheating would be repugnant to them.
In my mind at least, once the athlete has made a conscious decision to cheat, then they are a cheater. If it turns out they were only taking smarties, they've still crossed that line to be a cheater.
alock said:
Kermit power said:
Ah, but he's not, is he? He thinks he's taking something and he thinks it's illegal, but in fact it's not illegal.
I would equate it to someone praying and thinking their God is giving them something extra.Until 'peaches' are banned I've done nothing wrong. (This has not been scientifically proven, yet)
Edit: so yes, he was a massive cheat and deserves the ridicule and shaming he gets, more so for taking down the people around him, perjury etc etc
okgo said:
He was a total w
ker, so he paid a bigger price than the others.
Recovery was the main thing, Boardman had the engine, but just couldn't keep going day after day as he was clean in those times.
Not just a total wker, so he paid a bigger price than the others.Recovery was the main thing, Boardman had the engine, but just couldn't keep going day after day as he was clean in those times.
ker, a total nasty piece of work from what I have read. There's more to cheating than just taking stuff you know is not legal.It is slightly odd that Armstrong hasn't been able to keep his titles. Bullying aside, his cheating was no worse than many other GT winners - not condoning it of course. Ullrich keeps his, Anquetil, Mercx the same, and of course Indurain gets a free pass and I think recently they even named a stage after Marco Pantani in the Giro. Bot forgetting of course some cheats are even given a plaque marking where they died. All very strange.
To understand the culture of drug-taking, its performance benefits and the "cult of Armstrong", "The Secret Race" and "Seven Deadly Sins" are really worth a read and were eye-opening for me.
Put simply, EPO was used in conjunction with self-transfusions, testosterone to aid recovery, cortisone to reduce inflammation etc in a way that meant the Grand Tours could be harder than ever before and at higher speeds. Those who were clean would often struggle to even keep up and many retired early and were either intimidated into silence or outcast for speaking out against doping culture (e.g. Christophe Bassons).
In the world of blood doping it was not a level playing field as some claim. During the mid to late 90s there was no test for EPO but riders would be withdrawn from races if their heamatocrit (red blood cell %) was above 50. A rider with a natural haemotacrit of 30 had a much greater margin to gain through blood doping than someone with a natural value of 45 because of the window in which improvements could be made i.e. to be as close as possible to 50.
In the early 90s when EPO became available haemotacrit was not even tested, which may explain how Greg Lemond suddenly could hardly keep up while still posting the same numbers in training as while he was winning the year before, and Miguel Indurain managed to hang on in the mountains despite weighing about 80kg. Bjarne Riis was apparently known as "Mr 60" due to his level while competing.
The reason Armstrong was treated more harshly than the rest was because he used his position and wealth to intimidate those around him and anyone who cast doubt on his performances, like David Walsh.
Sorry, I'm rambling really but in answer to your question EPO does have a physiological effect, other drugs were used too and it still wasn't a level playing field.
Put simply, EPO was used in conjunction with self-transfusions, testosterone to aid recovery, cortisone to reduce inflammation etc in a way that meant the Grand Tours could be harder than ever before and at higher speeds. Those who were clean would often struggle to even keep up and many retired early and were either intimidated into silence or outcast for speaking out against doping culture (e.g. Christophe Bassons).
In the world of blood doping it was not a level playing field as some claim. During the mid to late 90s there was no test for EPO but riders would be withdrawn from races if their heamatocrit (red blood cell %) was above 50. A rider with a natural haemotacrit of 30 had a much greater margin to gain through blood doping than someone with a natural value of 45 because of the window in which improvements could be made i.e. to be as close as possible to 50.
In the early 90s when EPO became available haemotacrit was not even tested, which may explain how Greg Lemond suddenly could hardly keep up while still posting the same numbers in training as while he was winning the year before, and Miguel Indurain managed to hang on in the mountains despite weighing about 80kg. Bjarne Riis was apparently known as "Mr 60" due to his level while competing.
The reason Armstrong was treated more harshly than the rest was because he used his position and wealth to intimidate those around him and anyone who cast doubt on his performances, like David Walsh.
Sorry, I'm rambling really but in answer to your question EPO does have a physiological effect, other drugs were used too and it still wasn't a level playing field.
Edited by Treb0r on Sunday 2nd July 20:48
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff