Hacker News Reader

Comment by zw123456 | Hacker News Reader

Maybe a bit OT here but... The thing I always wondered about what the probability that Lance Armstrong was the only one doping. I know some others have been caught but it did seem to me like there was a second agenda there.

View on HN

Literally everyone in professional cycling at that level was taking PEDs. Think of it in the same way everyone knew the NSA was spying on us. When proof came to light we all just shrugged our shoulders.

Can we have an equivalent of Godwin's Law for the NSA please?

Armstrong was one doper amongst many, but that's not the reason he is held in such low esteem by the cycling fraternity. Armstrong was the chief enforcer of the omerta, cycling's code of silence regarding doping.

Armstrong destroyed Filippo Simeoni's career in punishment for speaking out over doping. He sued at least a dozen people for defamation, in many cases successfully; he has so far escaped criminal prosecution for his rampant perjury.

Armstrong is resented not because he was a doper, but because he was an aggressive bully who fought tirelessly to protect the culture of doping. Armstrong had no respect for the sport, and we have no respect for him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filippo_Simeoni https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taWGQNKUgQQ https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2012/10/lance-armstrong-li...

He definitely wasn't the only one doping. There have been huge scandals, but Operation Puerto (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operaci%C3%B3n_Puerto_doping_c...) left a lot of people in legal trouble. Many riders have been previously implicated in doping and returned to cycling.

Here's an old (2012) infographic that illustrates how many of the top finishers in previous Tours have been caught (or otherwise implicated) doping: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/08/24/sports/top-fin...

I went looking for an old graphic showing doping status of other top Tour de France finishers during the years Lance Armstrong won, and couldn't find it, but the Wikipedia article on doping at the tour should go a long way to satisfying your curiosity on this question:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_the_Tour_de_France

Tyler Hamilton's book on that era is a great read:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B008WOUJQG

I think you'd have to be crazy to dope now, after Lance's fall from grace. My default opinion is that systemic doping isn't happening and I'll be really sad if it is.

That's borderline naive to believe that the best teams don't dope anymore. E.g. the ascent times prove that the winners in the last years cannot be undoped.

Mount Ventoux: 2013: 59m:00s Chris Froome 21.86 km/h Such a time is not possible undoped. See e.g. http://sportsscientists.com/2013/07/froomes-first-mountain-p...

But same as Armstrong or Contador only the best do it the best way, and will not get caught for some time.

Of course it’s possible. If a human body can do it without mechanical aid, it’s possible there’s someone with the requisite attributes.

Whether it’s likely is a different matter.

That analysis is extremely flawed. We have no standardised start point for any of the grand cols and no accurate power data for most performances, meaning there is an enormous amount of guesswork.

Team Sky have invested heavily in technology, which includes many significant improvements to tyre rolling resistance and drivetrain losses - someone riding Froome's Pinarello would need about 30w less power to equal the performances of the 1990s.

Course profile is also highly significant. A rider who arrives at a major climb with low lactate levels can remain above threshold for longer and sustain far higher power outputs. Without taking into account the parcours and previous attacks on the day's stage, any comparison is meaningless. Again, technology plays a significant role - Sky have been criticized by many fans for riding by the numbers, precisely pacing an effort for maximum efficiency rather than attacking and counterattacking. This kind of data-driven pacing simply wasn't possible during the Festina era.

I'm sure that doping was incredibly widespread. Just like in baseball. Look at the raw numbers in MLB today: the number of pitchers with an ERA under 3.0 has doubled this years compared to ten years ago, and the power homerun leaders are down about 20 HRs as well. You've got some technical and strategic changes that might help to account for the ERA improvements, like increasing emphasis on defensive skills at some positions, and massive increases in the usages of aggressive defensive shifts, but the HR numbers are pretty clearly the result of cleaning up steroid usage among hitters. There's been a few ballpark changes that have switched some of the old bandbox parks over to parks with larger outfields, but that's not enough to get us from having random third-basemen and shortstops cranking 40-50 HRs to where we are now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com