- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Study: PEDs Lance Armstrong took most likely did nothing for him
Posted on 7/1/17 at 1:48 am
Posted on 7/1/17 at 1:48 am
quote:
The use of erythropoietin (EPO) has no effect on athletic performance, acccording to a recent study, which then begs the question: Did Lance Armstrong dope for nothing?
The study, published (ironically?) in The Lancet medical journal, divided 48 high-level (but amateur) cyclists into two groups. One group was given EPO, while the other group was given a placebo. The results: after a series of grueling rides, the two groups showed no difference in performance whatsoever.
LINK
16
Posted on 7/1/17 at 1:52 am to RollTide1987
Its like he killed someone that was already dead
Posted on 7/1/17 at 2:03 am to RollTide1987
He lost his nuts for nothing?
Posted on 7/1/17 at 2:07 am to RollTide1987
This actually brings up a different question.
WADA and the accrediting bodiies can retroactively punish individuals years after an event when a substance is found to be "performance enhancing," even if it was not banned at the time.
So in a case like this, shouldn't they retroactively remove punishments if a substance that was banned is later found to be "not performance enhancing/?"
Or is anti-doping just like the War on Drugs, where those in power can only acquire more power, not the other way around, even if counter to the evidence?
WADA and the accrediting bodiies can retroactively punish individuals years after an event when a substance is found to be "performance enhancing," even if it was not banned at the time.
So in a case like this, shouldn't they retroactively remove punishments if a substance that was banned is later found to be "not performance enhancing/?"
Or is anti-doping just like the War on Drugs, where those in power can only acquire more power, not the other way around, even if counter to the evidence?
Posted on 7/1/17 at 2:49 am to RollTide1987
People often forget Lance had serious cancer before all those tour victories, and shrunk down to a twig.
When he was recovering he basically built himself into a prototype cyclist from the ground up. That had more to do with it than the cheating, which most everyone else was doing too.
When he was recovering he basically built himself into a prototype cyclist from the ground up. That had more to do with it than the cheating, which most everyone else was doing too.
Posted on 7/1/17 at 3:06 am to RollTide1987
Doping wasn't his biggest problem...
Its the POS attitude after the fact, for years, that rubbed people the wrong way
Its the POS attitude after the fact, for years, that rubbed people the wrong way
Posted on 7/1/17 at 4:12 am to RollTide1987
Most things on banned substance lists have very little to no actual benefit to athletes.
The war against steroids and PED's in sports is futile. Eventually they are going to have to change with the times and science.
The war against steroids and PED's in sports is futile. Eventually they are going to have to change with the times and science.
Posted on 7/1/17 at 4:47 am to RollTide1987
The researcher said Epo did show a benefit in lab tests which he described as more intense. He further stated Epo did not increase endurance. Cycling at the pro or an elite level is about the ability to ride at a high intensity level for short periods of time......think about an attack by a rider on a mountain climb.....it's these short bursts that are the difference between winning and alsorans....same with a TT....the ability to ride at a high lactate threshold. Furthermore, this is one study on s small sample group of amatures.....what level were these amatures? More studies should be performed on elite level athletes.
Posted on 7/1/17 at 6:58 am to RollTide1987
Bull. shite.
Plus he was blood doping as well. So there's that.
Plus he was blood doping as well. So there's that.
Posted on 7/1/17 at 7:02 am to RollTide1987
Doesn't EPO help with recovery?
Aka the most important thing during a three week tour
Aka the most important thing during a three week tour
Posted on 7/1/17 at 7:06 am to lnomm34
.....
This post was edited on 7/1/17 at 7:12 am
Posted on 7/1/17 at 7:34 am to buckeye_vol
The problem with your scenario is that when he was taking it, he believed it was helping him and knew he shouldn't be doing it.
He intended on his performance being enhanced, so he isn't innocent here. Right?
He intended on his performance being enhanced, so he isn't innocent here. Right?
Posted on 7/1/17 at 7:36 am to TejasHorn
Hahahahahaha
Nobody forgets Lance Armstrong had cancer. Nobody.
Nobody forgets Lance Armstrong had cancer. Nobody.
Posted on 7/1/17 at 8:07 am to RollTide1987
Barry Bonds always said they weren't for performance, but for recovery.
Posted on 7/1/17 at 8:12 am to RollTide1987
Same thing with Pete Rose, it was the lying that rubbed people the wrong way.
And in Lance's case being an a-hole and suing anyone that called him on it.
And in Lance's case being an a-hole and suing anyone that called him on it.
Posted on 7/1/17 at 9:16 am to RollTide1987
This link will help most understand why this study has faults and goes against the science and biology behind EPO. LINK
Posted on 7/1/17 at 10:35 am to TT9
I agree it is similar to Pete Rose...but the euros will never forgive because he's American and dominated.
Posted on 7/1/17 at 10:42 am to Tigerinasia
Yeah, ok. Tell that to Mike Seaver:
Posted on 7/1/17 at 11:58 am to Tarik One
His team had something figured out. They took guys who were good and made them great. The team would go to the front and keep up such a pace that no one even tried to attack.
You don't see that kind of team dominance any more, even with Sky.
They likely did a lot more than just take a pop of EPO before a ride. They had a system of continual doping, including g blood transfusions mid-tour.
You don't see that kind of team dominance any more, even with Sky.
They likely did a lot more than just take a pop of EPO before a ride. They had a system of continual doping, including g blood transfusions mid-tour.
Posted on 7/1/17 at 12:02 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
(ironically?) in The Lancet
Sports writers always get irony wrong.
This post was edited on 7/1/17 at 12:03 pm
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News