Lance Armstrong' s era of performance – Part II

Revisiting his time trial wins

Hein F.M. Lodewijkx*, AER Bos

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

This archival study (N = 100) compared Lance Armstrong’s time trial wins to victories demonstrated by all former multiple Grand Tour winners (1949–1995; Coppi, Anquetil, Merckx, Hinault, Indurain) and by riders who won similar races in the three major European Grand Tours (Tour de France, Giro d’Italia, and Vuelta a España) from 2006 to 2013, who were either involved in doping affairs or not. Regression analyses yielded a non–significant M = 142 seconds difference between Armstrong vs. the aggregated other riders (ΔR2 = .001, p = .20). The effect emerged after controlling for the influence of competition year (b = -12.23 s per year, ΔR2 = .045, p ≤ .001) and trial distances (b = 84.64 s per kilometer trial distance, ΔR2 = .933, p ≤ .001) on the variation in riders’ speed. Furthermore, Armstrong along with other riders who were suspended for doping use or who acknowledged having used doping in the 2006–2013 periods did not outperform riders who were not involved in doping affairs during the same years (M = -68 s, ΔR2 = .01, p = .35). Findings disprove the argument from ignorance, a false logic which refers to the often heard opinion that cyclists’ performances over time (including Armstrong’s wins) are mainly determined by their use of increasingly potent doping aids. However, in contrast to this logic, the distances of the time trials constitute the main determinant of riders’ performances rather than the year in which they competed, and riders engaged in doping affairs did not significantly outperform riders who were not.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)194-201
Number of pages8
JournalAmerican Journal of Sports Science and Medicine
Volume2
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Fingerprint

France
Regression Analysis

Keywords

  • doping
  • professional cycling
  • time trial performance

Cite this

@article{5cee718dccb642849bcbff5e58a1479d,
title = "Lance Armstrong' s era of performance – Part II: Revisiting his time trial wins",
abstract = "This archival study (N = 100) compared Lance Armstrong’s time trial wins to victories demonstrated by all former multiple Grand Tour winners (1949–1995; Coppi, Anquetil, Merckx, Hinault, Indurain) and by riders who won similar races in the three major European Grand Tours (Tour de France, Giro d’Italia, and Vuelta a Espa{\~n}a) from 2006 to 2013, who were either involved in doping affairs or not. Regression analyses yielded a non–significant M = 142 seconds difference between Armstrong vs. the aggregated other riders (ΔR2 = .001, p = .20). The effect emerged after controlling for the influence of competition year (b = -12.23 s per year, ΔR2 = .045, p ≤ .001) and trial distances (b = 84.64 s per kilometer trial distance, ΔR2 = .933, p ≤ .001) on the variation in riders’ speed. Furthermore, Armstrong along with other riders who were suspended for doping use or who acknowledged having used doping in the 2006–2013 periods did not outperform riders who were not involved in doping affairs during the same years (M = -68 s, ΔR2 = .01, p = .35). Findings disprove the argument from ignorance, a false logic which refers to the often heard opinion that cyclists’ performances over time (including Armstrong’s wins) are mainly determined by their use of increasingly potent doping aids. However, in contrast to this logic, the distances of the time trials constitute the main determinant of riders’ performances rather than the year in which they competed, and riders engaged in doping affairs did not significantly outperform riders who were not.",
keywords = "doping, professional cycling, time trial performance",
author = "Lodewijkx, {Hein F.M.} and AER Bos",
note = "exported from refbase (http://publicaties.ou.nl/show.php?record=1299), last updated on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 11:21:06 +0100",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.12691/ajssm-2-5-4",
language = "English",
volume = "2",
pages = "194--201",
journal = "American Journal of Sports Science and Medicine",
issn = "2333-4592",
publisher = "Science and Education Publishing Co. Ltd.",
number = "5",

}

Lance Armstrong' s era of performance – Part II : Revisiting his time trial wins. / Lodewijkx, Hein F.M.; Bos, AER.

In: American Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, Vol. 2, No. 5, 2014, p. 194-201.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Lance Armstrong' s era of performance – Part II

T2 - Revisiting his time trial wins

AU - Lodewijkx, Hein F.M.

AU - Bos, AER

N1 - exported from refbase (http://publicaties.ou.nl/show.php?record=1299), last updated on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 11:21:06 +0100

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - This archival study (N = 100) compared Lance Armstrong’s time trial wins to victories demonstrated by all former multiple Grand Tour winners (1949–1995; Coppi, Anquetil, Merckx, Hinault, Indurain) and by riders who won similar races in the three major European Grand Tours (Tour de France, Giro d’Italia, and Vuelta a España) from 2006 to 2013, who were either involved in doping affairs or not. Regression analyses yielded a non–significant M = 142 seconds difference between Armstrong vs. the aggregated other riders (ΔR2 = .001, p = .20). The effect emerged after controlling for the influence of competition year (b = -12.23 s per year, ΔR2 = .045, p ≤ .001) and trial distances (b = 84.64 s per kilometer trial distance, ΔR2 = .933, p ≤ .001) on the variation in riders’ speed. Furthermore, Armstrong along with other riders who were suspended for doping use or who acknowledged having used doping in the 2006–2013 periods did not outperform riders who were not involved in doping affairs during the same years (M = -68 s, ΔR2 = .01, p = .35). Findings disprove the argument from ignorance, a false logic which refers to the often heard opinion that cyclists’ performances over time (including Armstrong’s wins) are mainly determined by their use of increasingly potent doping aids. However, in contrast to this logic, the distances of the time trials constitute the main determinant of riders’ performances rather than the year in which they competed, and riders engaged in doping affairs did not significantly outperform riders who were not.

AB - This archival study (N = 100) compared Lance Armstrong’s time trial wins to victories demonstrated by all former multiple Grand Tour winners (1949–1995; Coppi, Anquetil, Merckx, Hinault, Indurain) and by riders who won similar races in the three major European Grand Tours (Tour de France, Giro d’Italia, and Vuelta a España) from 2006 to 2013, who were either involved in doping affairs or not. Regression analyses yielded a non–significant M = 142 seconds difference between Armstrong vs. the aggregated other riders (ΔR2 = .001, p = .20). The effect emerged after controlling for the influence of competition year (b = -12.23 s per year, ΔR2 = .045, p ≤ .001) and trial distances (b = 84.64 s per kilometer trial distance, ΔR2 = .933, p ≤ .001) on the variation in riders’ speed. Furthermore, Armstrong along with other riders who were suspended for doping use or who acknowledged having used doping in the 2006–2013 periods did not outperform riders who were not involved in doping affairs during the same years (M = -68 s, ΔR2 = .01, p = .35). Findings disprove the argument from ignorance, a false logic which refers to the often heard opinion that cyclists’ performances over time (including Armstrong’s wins) are mainly determined by their use of increasingly potent doping aids. However, in contrast to this logic, the distances of the time trials constitute the main determinant of riders’ performances rather than the year in which they competed, and riders engaged in doping affairs did not significantly outperform riders who were not.

KW - doping

KW - professional cycling

KW - time trial performance

UR - http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajssm/2/5/4/index.html

U2 - 10.12691/ajssm-2-5-4

DO - 10.12691/ajssm-2-5-4

M3 - Article

VL - 2

SP - 194

EP - 201

JO - American Journal of Sports Science and Medicine

JF - American Journal of Sports Science and Medicine

SN - 2333-4592

IS - 5

ER -