There is a new story circulating today that a former assistant—Paul
Re: Armstrong doping question
Tue, 05 Apr 2005 21:00:43 +0100
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@ftc.gov>

The quotes are superfluous, my name really is Guy. True, I haven’t ridden a bike for over two hours now, and I rarely ride much more than a hundred miles a week. I have only raced three times, and never in a road race (one track race on a recumbent, two cross-country races) but I am one of the fastest cyclists I know. Actually one of the reasons I think most of those guys are on drugs is that even when I was substantially fitter than I am now, working out for an average of at least an hour a day in the gym plus cycling 15 miles round trip to work every day, my flat-out speed on the road was still slower than Lance rides up mountains. Some of that will be genetic, some of it age, some of it training, but looking at the incredible increases in performance over very short periods (essentially zero in evolutionary terms) I can’t believe that no chemicals are involved. I could be wrong, but the periodic high-profile doping scandals suggest not.—Just

Re: Armstrong doping question
Wed, 06 Apr 2005 12:03:23 GMT
Stephen Harding <smhard...@verizon.net>

Why can’t someone who has a tremendously strong work ethic in training, combined with specialization in one event, not to mention probable natural physiological ability (his lung power is supposed to be tremendous), not end up being so dominant among his racing peers?

Do you think Merckx was doing anything hokey in dominating his sport so thoroughly for so long?

SMH—Stephen

Read what I said. I can’t believe that the massive advances in performance in recent years can be down solely to genetics and training.—Just

Yeah, after all, there were all of those accusations against Merckx while he was riding, and there wouldn’t have been accusations if they weren’t true, would they? How would it be possible that Mercx could do so well year after year and yet his son can’t possibly rise to the same level. It can’t be genetics, so it must be that Eddy took drugs! Yeah, that MUST be it.—Pat