From Lance to Landis
I really have no desire to re-open a big LA debate, but...
I've just finished reading David Walsh's "From Lance To Landis" and a lot of his arguments are quite compelling. However there seems to me to be a big contradiction in it all.
One of the reasons Walsh gives for being suspicious of Armstrong is his huge leap in performance post-cancer, from being a Tour also-ran to a seven-time winner. Walsh argues that Armstrong's pre- and post-cancer weight only differed by a kilo, and presents some figures to back this up. He therefore concludes that LA was "at it".
The big showpiece of the book is Armstrong's alleged hospital room confession to a doctor, that he used epo, steroids, growth hormone etc.
Now, if Armstrong was using all this stuff *pre-cancer*, and Walsh suggests he'd been using PEDs since some time in 94, then why was his performance between 94 and 96 (in Grand Tours) still relatively poor? Something must have changed, post-cancer. Walsh simply explains this away by saying "Michele Ferrari is, perhaps, the key to understanding the rider's progress." But he only elaborates as far as saying Armstrong was "more muscular and powerful than before" in early 96. I don't really feel this is satisfactory.
Views?
I've just finished reading David Walsh's "From Lance To Landis" and a lot of his arguments are quite compelling. However there seems to me to be a big contradiction in it all.
One of the reasons Walsh gives for being suspicious of Armstrong is his huge leap in performance post-cancer, from being a Tour also-ran to a seven-time winner. Walsh argues that Armstrong's pre- and post-cancer weight only differed by a kilo, and presents some figures to back this up. He therefore concludes that LA was "at it".
The big showpiece of the book is Armstrong's alleged hospital room confession to a doctor, that he used epo, steroids, growth hormone etc.
Now, if Armstrong was using all this stuff *pre-cancer*, and Walsh suggests he'd been using PEDs since some time in 94, then why was his performance between 94 and 96 (in Grand Tours) still relatively poor? Something must have changed, post-cancer. Walsh simply explains this away by saying "Michele Ferrari is, perhaps, the key to understanding the rider's progress." But he only elaborates as far as saying Armstrong was "more muscular and powerful than before" in early 96. I don't really feel this is satisfactory.
Views?
Le Blaireau (1)
0
Comments
-
Armstrong in 1994: http://www.jsmcelvery.com/photos/armstr ... trong1.jpg
Armstrong in 1999: http://www.sites.si.edu/images/exhibits ... ng_jpg.jpg
Allowing for angle etc, Armstrong is visibly a heavier rider pre-cancer than after. He was also a far less focused rider and not a GT rider of note.
My problem with Walsh's stuff is that he throws out a suggestion, swamps it in some testimony and numbers and then carries on as if it has suddenly become substantiated fact in narrative. He often seems to bluster his way past evidence that contradicts him - things like citing the IM conversation between Vaughters and Andreu as evidence when it is recorded that it was refutes it as such.0 -
I've often wondered this too. Could it be that in the 90s he was up against guys with 60% HCT and didn't have a chance?
Or was his PED usage not properly coordinated until 99?It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.0 -
I think the study done that showed he improved his muscular efficiency accounts quite well for the difference. It was a guy who'd been studying Lance for 7 years (up to 1999 I believe). I believe his study results more than conjecture by Walsh.
Summary of Findings: http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=3267
Full Article: http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/98/6/2191Over the studied period, Lance’s gross efficiency increased by an astronomical 8-9%
8-9% is insane. Consider that the difference between first and last place in the TDF is about 4%.0 -
Timoid. wrote:I've often wondered this too. Could it be that in the 90s he was up against guys with 60% HCT and didn't have a chance?
Or was his PED usage not properly coordinated until 99?
Nah - When did Eddy Merckx introduce him to Ferrari? 96? I think something happened during the cancer treatment. Maybe a mental thing, who knows, but something happened. It's probably the PED's + exceptionally hard work he put in that did it.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:Timoid. wrote:I've often wondered this too. Could it be that in the 90s he was up against guys with 60% HCT and didn't have a chance?
Or was his PED usage not properly coordinated until 99?
Nah - When did Eddy Merckx introduce him to Ferrari? 96? I think something happened during the cancer treatment. Maybe a mental thing, who knows, but something happened. It's probably the PED's + exceptionally hard work he put in that did it.
I would agree with that the mental side is certain to have changed post to pre. Walsh has for many years had a chip on him to find something out about LA and has lost out every time to date, it is all supposition from him and I for one would take Walsh with a pinch of salt0 -
Given the PED culture until fairly recently, I don't think it's a stretch to think LA used them, but he probably would have been in the minority if he didn't. That being said, if everyone else was on them, his accomplishments still stand up as remarkable.
I'm no fan of LA, he appears to be quite a dislikable guy, but I wouldn't have thought he was doing anything different in preparation than anyone else during the period.I was only joking when I said
by rights you should be bludgeoned in your bed0 -
The Coyle study has been disproved, as has the ideas about lactic acid. In fact Armstrong's V02 max was quite average - certainly nothing like Lemond, for example.
There is a lot of myth making about Armstrong, helped by people like Carmichael and Coyle, and a lot of people who need the myth to be real. We know from other sources that Armstrong considered Ferrari to be his real coach and not Carmichael.
I would not be so quick to discount the evidence that Walsh has. In 'Inside the Tour de France' Walsh was very impressed by Armstrong so it would be interesting to know what changed his very good impression to such a poor one.
Of course there are other factors than PEDs to account for the success of Armstrong but you also cannot discount that PEDs will have played a very big part.0 -
Well, it looks like the question remains. As I said before, I am prepared to go one way or another on this one. BUT, the people who are convinced he used PEDs *all through* his career (or at least for a couple of seasons, pre-96) need to explain why he was not a GT factor pre-cancer then went to complete GT dominance post-cancer. In an attempt to throw several different handfuls of mud, it seems to me that Walsh has created a bit of a dilemma for himself, and one for which he does not provide an adequate explanation in his book.
The weight loss issue, if it is close to the 15-20 pounds LA claims, would of course explain the climbing prowess post-cancer, but would not really explain his improvements in TTing.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
I think the answer is fairly obvious. Given a stark reminder of brevity, he 1/ Organised and optimised his PEDs, and 2/ Worked his ass off.
I am not inclined to like him given what I have read about his treatment of anyone perceived as a threat, but work his ass off he did. You could fill me full of epo and I wouldn't win a cat 4.Dan0 -
He was a young kid pre-1996 and rode and acted like one. Witness the number of enemies he created within the peloton in his first few years as a pro due to his disrespectul and brash behaviour.DaveyL wrote:Well, it looks like the question remains. As I said before, I am prepared to go one way or another on this one. BUT, the people who are convinced he used PEDs *all through* his career (or at least for a couple of seasons, pre-96) need to explain why he was not a GT factor pre-cancer then went to complete GT dominance post-cancer. In an attempt to throw several different handfuls of mud, it seems to me that Walsh has created a bit of a dilemma for himself, and one for which he does not provide an adequate explanation in his book.
After cancer one character trait stands out; Armstrong had a lot of anger and he used that as a motivator. In his first couple of Tours he used the unjust treatment he felt he had from Cofidis to fuel that fire. Later on he had the anti-French conspiracy, David Walsh and a thousand other doubters which he could use as a fuel.0 -
DaveyL wrote:it seems to me that Walsh has created a bit of a dilemma for himself, and one for which he does not provide an adequate explanation in his book.
While I think he's got a good writer, I do think he has a habit of glossing over things when they don't support his arguments. There are a few examples of it in From Lance to Landis. I'd look them up but I'm too engrossed in reading books about mountaineering at the moment
I wonder if his Slipstream article which is due for the Times is going to be a hatchet job or positive.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
We've been waiting for that ST article for a while, come on David, how long does it take to knock up a few words
As another contributing factor to LA going from his pre-1996 self to a GT contender, don't forget he suddenly had the weight of USPS, Trek, Nike etc all behind him (particularly once he'd won in 1999. The increase in technology (wind tunnel testing, better bike, better equipment) could all have helped (to an extent) with the improvement in TTing.
Oh and what are the mountaineering books? Any recommendations?0 -
iain, have you read "The White Spider"? It's great.Dan0
-
flattythehurdler wrote:iain, have you read "The White Spider"? It's great.
Yes excellent book! An even better read if you've been and stood at the bottom of the Eigerwand and looked up (or looked down out of one of the windows in the face) :shock:
The Beckoning Silence is about the Eiger, and very good too.0 -
This argument will rage on forever. I loved the book, and i really can not see why his Soigneur would have spoken out as she did if it were not true. Same as Betsy Andreu. These people have nothing to gain, and infact everything to lose.
But as somebody said above, he is still an incredible human being, because to come from the level he was, to beat cancer, and even if he was on dope to then go on an perform the way he did is just incredible. We forget that he did train like a complete demon and is a completely driven person.
What an irony it would be though if PED use before his cancer had initiated or played some part in the onset of the disease...0 -
It still remains that LA was THE most tested athlete in the world and, whilst there are those who will always want to beleive he was guilty , I for one am happy to believe he was simply the best TDF rider ever! We've all seen the advert where he's ask what he's on, and replies "I'm on my bike 7 days a week, what are you on?", that's the picture I want to believe, the one of him atop Alpe d'Hez in the snow on a training ride. The suspicion will never go away, but as an eternal optimist, I continue to view him as someone who commited himself to focusing on one goal so intently that he simply had no equal.
Has anyone read Landis' book? I'm halfway through it and am finding it a fascinating read, any views in this?Pictures are better than words because some words are big and hard to understand.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/34335188@N07/3336802663/0 -
leguape wrote:Armstrong in 1999: http://www.sites.si.edu/images/exhibits ... ng_jpg.jpg
That pic is actually from 2002, not that it really matters!0 -
I don't think Armstrong was "the most tested". By virtue of the small number of events he rode per year, the chances of being tested dimished. Clearly his wins and yellow jerseys meant he would have been tested quite a bit during competition but that doesn't mean he was tested more than others, nor do we know how many out of competition tests he underwent.
No one's saying he stayed indoors, ate donuts and it was only thanks to Dr Ferrari and pharmaceuticals that he won, just that the reality behind his Tour wins might be different from the image, especially since practically every one of his rivals has now been exposed as a cheat.
Remember, many pros recce the stages and end up riding in the snow. It's just they don't have Nike on hand to make publicity films with rousing music when they go 0 -
-
OK shatter all my illusions, I'm just gonna sell my bikes and buy pies!
Pictures are better than words because some words are big and hard to understand.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/34335188@N07/3336802663/0 -
I know, it was a rhetorical question. Too many people take what the Lance PR machine churned out as gospel truth.iainf72 wrote:0 -
......and, I wasn't suggesting the image was a true one, it's just the one I prefer to believe, gullible as I am. I'm not suggesting he was even the greatest cyclist ever, but his TDF record speaks for itself, even though he surrounded himself with the best riders and was equipped with the best kit (am I talking myself out of this obsession?)Pictures are better than words because some words are big and hard to understand.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/34335188@N07/3336802663/0 -
iainf72 wrote:
During her trial, Marion Jones repeatedly claimed she was the most tested athlete in the world. And this article suggests that track and field athletes in America are given far more OOC tests than cyclists.
Was Armstrong even the most tested cyclist in the world? During his era, riders like Cipollini and Petacchi were notching up 20-25 victories each year - that's a test for each win, plus all the days they spent in the green/ciclamino jersey.
Whatever, Armstrong was probably tested the same amount as Ullrich, Pantani, Basso, Millar etc...[/i]0 -
Is it my understanding that Ullrich was only found guilty of taking "recreational" drugs?Pictures are better than words because some words are big and hard to understand.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/34335188@N07/3336802663/0 -
Not exactly. In 2006 just prior to the Tour, the police in Spain raided an apartment used by Dr Eufemio Fuentes who was running a blood doping operation. Ullrich's blood was found there. The German authorities have produced additional evidence that Ullrich had been paying Fuentes €60000 a year for his services.Robmanic1 wrote:Is it my understanding that Ullrich was only found guilty of taking "recreational" drugs?
Ullrich retired before he could be sanctioned and just this week has paid out a fine of €100000 as part of that case. He still insists he's done nothing wrong but only his loyal dog Wilhelm believes him.0 -
I thought about winning the TDF, so technically, I did! Can I have my jersey now please?Pictures are better than words because some words are big and hard to understand.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/34335188@N07/3336802663/0 -
Why have I just thought of Spartacus with all these "I'm the most tested athlete on the planet" claims...Le Blaireau (1)0
