The more you know, the worse it is for LA.
California L33 said:
True, VO2 max is probably the most important measurement for a cyclist, but it's not the only one. A relatively low VO2 max could explain why he was never a great rider at the one day classics..
Before cancer he was
only a great rider in the one day classics. All discerning people in cycling only saw him as a classics rider before cancer.
California L33 said:
But to play Devil's Advocate yet again (because nobody else will even consider it) I saw an interview with one of the scientists at the US Olympic training facility who said Lance had the lowest lactic acid production of any athlete they had measured- ever...
Who, Ed Coyle?
The role of lactic acid has been misunderstood until fairly recently. According to Dr. Mike Ashenden in From Lance to Landis, "the truth of the matter is that back , say, ten , fifteen, twenty years ago, lactic acid was viewed in a completely different context. It was thought of as an evil thing. You know, lactic acid impairs your muscle function, blah, blah, blah. The most recent literature turns out...lactic acid is really good during exercise. It's essential. It's used as a fuel by the muscle, so the notion that having a high level is going to give you, or a low level is going to give you better performance is flawed."
page 283 From Lance to Landis.
Here are some article discussing the science from the New York Times and cycling news, do a google search yourself....
http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness.php?id=fitness/2004/lactic_frederick
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...1575BC0A9629C8B63&scp=5&sq=lactic+acid&st=nyt
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...25755C0A9609C8B63&scp=4&sq=lactic+acid&st=nyt
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/16/health/nutrition/16run.html?scp=1&sq=lactic+acid&st=nyt
California L33 said:
That would give him a tremendous advantage in multi-day grand tour type events because his muscles would work more efficiently in the long term. ...
Are you a physiologist? How come it didn't give a huge advantage in the Tour when he was 24 years old? He was World Champ at 22. He finished his first TdF in three attempts and was 36th place, over an hour behind Indurain. Lemond had already been 3rd and 2nd at that age and won at 25. Fignon had won at 22 and 23 years old.. Hinault won at 23,24,26,27 and 30.
Merckx, 24,25,26,27 and 29.
California L33 said:
As for the evidence against him, apparently it hasn't been enough for any court of law, or even the far, far less stringent governing body courts....
Bonds is reviled and he's just starting to coming into trouble. LA has the halo effect with his cancer research foundation..
Page 330, From Lance to Landis, the last page of the book.
"His victory was assured once Richard Faulkner chairman of the arbitration panel, ruled that SCA was an insurance company. Once that was decided, all that mattered was that the UCI considered Armstrong the winner of the 2004 Tour. His libel acions weren't so conclusive . After trial dates were agreed in both London and Paris, Armstrong settled in one city and withdrew in the other. The settlement with
The Sunday Times in London was a victory of sorts for Armstrong because the newspaper agreed to apologize for the offending article and to pay one third of his legal costs. Under France's more sympathetic libel laws, the publishers of
L.A. Confidential let it be know they were not for settling. Shortly before the trial was scheduled to happen October 2005, Armstrong withdrew his action. Bill Stapletons's prophecy, uttered during the secretly taped conversation with Frankie Andreu at the 2004 Tour de France, had come to pass. "because the best result for us is...drop the f&cking lawsuit and it all just goes away. Because the other option is full out war in a French court and everybody's gonna testify and it could blow the whole sport."
California L33 said:
The media makes lots of money on the concept of guilty until proven innocent. I prefer the other way around. ...
And it is illegal to knowingly publish false material...
California L33 said:
And please keep in mind I'm not saying Lance is innocent. 'Innocence' is a construct. In courts there is guilty and not guilty. (And depending upon the court it can be guilty by preponderance of the evidence, or guilty beyond a reasonable doubt- two very different standards). As of right now Lance is not guilty; Floyd is guilty.
You left out the court of public opinion...