3 ms·
What an extremely wordy and repetitive article mostly to say the author doesn't believe anyone can prove that Lance would have won in a clean field. Obviously,
by loeg 3y ago
What an extremely wordy and repetitive article mostly to say the author doesn't believe anyone can prove that Lance would have won in a clean field. Obviously, it never happened, so no one can know what would have happened. No one can prove a counterfactual. But I don't think the rest of the words adds to the discourse any more than the single sentence:
> I do not think it follows from Mr. Armstrong having been stronger than other cheaters while he himself was cheating that he would have been the strongest clean cyclist if everyone was clean.
- keypusher 3y agoI kept reading expecting to eventually get to some data, but there never was any. Just the same opinion restated over and over.
- ukoki 3y agoThe artcle is bullshit because the performance of a doped athelete is going to depend on two factors: 1. The athlete's baseline performance (ie would they be fast clean?) 2. How well the athlete's body responds to the effects of doping You cannot say "they were fast doped so they must be fast clean" -- they might just have a unusually positive reaction to EPO.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]