Lance Armstrong is a great endurance athlete, and would have possibly won the tour De France, regardless of whether or not he blood doped.
Let's put this in perspective.
First of all, the sport is notoriously dirty. Many athletes claim "everyone was doing it," thus Lance felt he had to sacrifice (and harm his future health) to be the "best."
Secondly, Lance will pay a price for "using" what he did. The long terms effects of what he did to "cheat" are extremely detrimental. Lance chose to pay the consequences of using hormones in the long-term.
Lance's Drugs
Third, Lance trained. HE DID THE TRAINING in order to perform well. There is no "magic pill" that athletes can take to make them great. Hard work, sacrifice, and dedication are all part of the formula, and Lance worked extremely hard to perform as well as he did. How many people who are criticizing him can even imagine the amount of effort it took to compete at his level? Or even an amateur level? Fat, lazy Americans speaking of Lance cheating as though they could have won the Tour De France by doping or taking steroids is as laughable as hearing people talk about how they could have hit more home runs than Barry Bonds if they had taken anabolic steroids.
Fourth- Lance is a genetically gifted endurance athlete. I have always used Lance Armstrong as an example in my cardiac physiology lectures as an example of how VO2 max and lactate threshold influence endurance performance. Because maximal aerobic capacity is highly genetic, the fact that Lance has a high VO2 max theoretically means he would perform better than someone with a lower maximal VO2 (due to an increased ability to transport and utilize oxygen). The lactate threshold is the trainable component of aerobic endurance performance, but even if Lance is untrained and accumulates lactate at 40-50% of his VO2max, he would perform better than someone who isn't genetically gifted but who is trained and accumulates lactate around 80% of VO2max.
For example:
Maximal Aerobic Capacity
Lance- VO2 max: 80 mlO2/kg/min
Average Male- VO2max: 40 mlO2/kg/min
Lactate Accumulation Untrained:
Lance- VO2: 40 mlO2/kg/min
Average Male- VO2: 20 mlO2/kg/min
Lactate Accumulation Trained:
Lance- VO2: 64 mlO2/kg/min
Average Male- VO2: 32 mlO2/kg/min
As you can see, even when highly trained, an average male would not have the capacity to transport and utilize oxygen, without accumulating lactate, at the same level that Lance could perform at while untrained.
Lastly, examining how blood doping effects hemoglobin level (assuming doping does not increase blood viscosity to the point that negative effects such as increase BP negatively influence the cardiovascular system) can put things in perspective somewhat.
Each gram of hemoglobin in red blood cells can carry 1.36 ml of oxygen, the oxygen content of the blood (either arterial or venous) can be estimated by:
![\text{Oxygen Content of blood} = \left [\text{Hb} \right] \left ( \text{g/dl} \right ) \ \times\ 1.36 \left ( \text{ml}\ O_2 /\text{g of Hb} \right ) \times\ O_2^{\text{saturation fraction}} +\ 0.0032\ \times\ P_{O_2} (\text{torr})](http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/f/4/a/f4ab17524a376eff016bcb3a0452da3e.png)
In males, assume an average hemoglobin concentration of 15 g/dl and an oxygen saturation of 99%. The oxygen concentration of arterial blood is approximately 200 ml of O2 per liter.
Change the hemoglobin concentration to account for doping, and the values will reflect the change in oxygen content. But tthe cardiovascular system is much more complex than this equation. There are countless other variables are unaccounted for when using this equation.
No one in the USA cared about the tour De France before Lance...he brought notoriety to the sport. In the USA, we believe in the American dream, and admire those who do all they can to be "the best." Why are we so quick to turn our backs on the athletes who sacrifice for our entertainment?
Kelly Brooks, Ph.D., CSCS*D, HFS, EPC
Granted I have not and still do not know much about Lance Armstrong except that he is a great athlete who competed and won (many times) the Tour de France.
ReplyDeleteI believe this entire thing is a media issue..
If Lance would have let the skeleton loose and the media never covered it America would still have this feel good we-love-Lance A.-because-he-defeated-cancer-and-still-competes emotion. But, since the media all over the world has blown this story up and made it as dramatic as it SEEMS on newspapers, internet, and television of course people are going to react just the way the media wants them to: shocked, appalled, disappointed, and angry.
Everybody knows Lance is a great athlete who has completed many great achievements but the average joe is still average and out of human evil there is judgement. To the world, athletes are above average; better than the standard human and watching them perform is always exciting. But why? I think it is because most spectators are a bit jealous - even subconsciously. So, when an above average human makes even the slightest mistake the world (those jealous spectators) are breathing down their necks to judge them on what the mistake was. And they are relentless.
I believe this "anger" and the turning-of-back is really a way out for the jealous spectator to make themselves feel better about their average life because when an above average person screws up then the average must not be so bad...
Perhaps my perspective is estranged, but I for one have no issues with PED's in professional sports. I understand that this is a slippery slope, and thus all collegiate and amateur levels should continue to be monitored rigorously, but in my opinion there is no harm in PED's at the professional level. I argue this for two reasons. One is, as has already been acknowledged, that the effort it takes to achieve a professional status in any sport takes far more than any PED can give you. You still must work harder, push further, and sacrifice more than any of your amateur peers if you ever wish to achieve that status despite taking PED's. Those who argue different don't understand what PED's do.
ReplyDeleteMy second reason stems from the rigors of a long season, or a long race in this case, and the tremendous demands that they place on the body. Most people don't understand how long the tour really is, or how physical and taxing other sport seasons and games really are. For example, some people probably think the tour is a day or two, maybe a bit longer. But the tour can be compared to running 21 marathons (28 miles) in back to back days. That concept in my mind is insane. Its a wonder that people could finish it at all in previous generations. Therefore in my opinion, in order to recover day after day, PED's are almost necessary. The same goes for professional football and baseball. In the NFL, these guys go to war every single week. Their impacts and tackles are routinely compared to medium impact car wrecks by head trauma professionals. Thus in order to adequately recover from that type of physicality, one must look to something to supplement natural recovery. Baseball falls under a similar argument as cycling. The rigors of a 161 games over the course of ~ 180 days is a trying concept. Again, just to recover appropriately these players need to supplement natural methods.
Thus, in my opinion, why this whole Armstrong thing has been completely blown out of proportion.
You make a very great point about the need of PED's in professional sports due to the strenuous feats of physical activity performed by the body. However, what confuses me is if associations such as the WDA are so adamant about restricting and banning the use of supplement (supplements that assist these athletes to make it through an event) then WHY make the duration/intensity/taxation of said event almost impossible to achieve (unless there is supplementation involved in this success)?
DeleteI understand that athletes are the Hercules of the Earth, the point of these events are to see just how far the body can go - once a limit is reached, can that limit be pushed further?
Has it ever occurred to anybody the possibility that those individuals who create and organize these extreme events and those who create and market supplements are either a) the same people or b) associates?
This is going off into galaxy field here but I believe there is a possibility that behind-the-scenes jealousy is heavily involved in this entire industry and athlete circle. I am not going to go into detail on this implication (unless someone wants me to) but it is interesting to consider the possibility of it.
Even though Lance doped I do still believe that Lance is a great Athlete who worked extremely hard and achieved goals that not everyone can do. Just because you dope does not automatically mean you will win or achieve greatness there still is hard work involved. Doping really just helps advance the work being done. However, the fact that he did not fess up and LIED is the main issue that so many people have a problem with. Overall, If he did fess up and didn’t lie he still would have been ridiculed, yet still would have more respect because he did not lie.
ReplyDeleteI am sure Lance Knew this all along, that regardless of lie or truth, the media and then world (especially fellow athletes) would put him down in a very negative way.
DeleteThis case is similar to the Salem Witch Trials. If you do not recall, the village of Salem became aware of witch craft practice from a group of young girls claiming incidents that occurred. Those who were accused to witch craft could either a) fess up to it and be hung or b) plead innocence and be hung... not much of a positive option now is there? In the end, this claim of "practice" merely began by a small white lie..
I love this topic. I like how it is pointed out that he did still do the work. Even in supplements are taken by athletes the supplements are not magic pills powders of whatever the substance bay be that just makes the athlete great. Hard work is what makes an athlete an elite performer. This is such a touchy topic because people hate to feel as if they or someone who they look up to has cheated. No one wants to be seen as a cheater. It is a fact that there are many athletes in most sports that use some form or drug or supplement to help with their performance. I know even in my high school some football player that had taken performance enhancing drugs or steroids. So is it right or wrong? For me it is a hard question to answer. However with the evidence shown in Lance’s case; he would still have been a top cyclist nonetheless.
ReplyDelete