Lance Armstrong’s Era of Performance – Part III: Demonstrating the Post Hoc Fallacy

Hein F.M. Lodewijkx^1,

¹Department of Psychology, Open University, Heerlen, The Netherlands

Cite this paper

Hein F.M. Lodewijkx. Lance Armstrong’s Era of Performance – Part III: Demonstrating the Post Hoc Fallacy. American Journal of Sports Science and Medicine. 2013; 1(4):63-70. doi: 10.12691/AJSSM-1-4-3

Abstract

In consequence of USADA’s charges, Lance Armstrong conceded he doped during his cycling career. The logic proposed in the post hoc fallacy entails that Armstrong’s sportive feats are therefore ‘caused’ by his doping use. This fallacy generalizes to the belief put forward in the doping debate that the progress in speed over time in professional cycling is determined by riders’ use of progressively potent doping agents. To examine this fallacy, the current study compared Armstrong’s mountain time trial wins, realized in the Tour de France (2001, 2004), to victories demonstrated by riders in similar races uphill in the French race (1958–1996, N = 17). The fallacy expects that riders will race faster over time and that Armstrong’s achievements will be far superior to other riders. However, if these expectations are disconfirmed the fallacy will be refuted. We developed a climbing index to evaluate riders’ km/h performances: Cl_I = (Corrected altitude climb / Distance trial) ● 100. Higher values indicate more demanding races. Mediation regression analyses showed that, over time, the trials became less demanding, b = -.0076 (∆R² = .201, p ≤ .05), and that riders raced b = 0.201 km/h faster per year (∆R² = .234, p ≤ .05). The index had a robust influence on riders’ speed (r = -.97) and they raced b = -2.302 km/h slower per unit of the index (∆R² = .932, p ≤ .0001). The significant mediating influence of the index, b = 0.175 km/h (p ≤ .05), subsequently reduced riders’ progress in speed to a nonsignificant b = 0.026 km/h per year (p = .38, ∆R² = .003). Furthermore, Armstrong’s performances did not prove to be outliers. Findings invalidate the reasoning employed in the post hoc fallacy, since the CL_I and not the year in which riders competed constitutes the main determinant of riders’ performances. They also entail that Armstrong’s modern doping agents may not have given him the proposed advantage over his forerunners who won trials before the 1990s, i.e., the years in which these potent aids were not yet rampant in professional road racing.

Keywords

archival records, epo doping, professional road cycling, time trial performance

Copyright

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References

[1]	Dilger A., Frick B. and Tolsdorf F., “Are athletes doped? Some theoretical arguments and empirical evidence.” Contemporary Economic Policy, 25 (4): 604-615, 2007.
[2]	USADA, Statement from USADA CEO Travis T. Tygart regarding the U.S. Postal Service Pro Cycling Team doping conspiracy, 2012. Online available: http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org.
[3]	USADA, Reasoned decision of the United States Anti-Doping Agency on disqualification and ineligibility, 2012. Online available: http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org
[4]	Carroll R. T., The skeptic's dictionary: A collection of strange beliefs, amusing deceptions, and dangerous delusions. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons, 2003.
[5]	Lodewijkx H.F.M. and Verboon P., “Armstrong’s era of performance-Part I: Are his time trial performances much different from other winners?” Journal of Athletic Enhancement, 2: 1, 2013. Online available: http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2324-9080.1000106
[6]	Lodewijkx H.F.M. and Bos A.E.R., “Armstrong’s era of performance-Part II: Too often the doping debate involves ‘arguments from ignorance.’” Manuscript submitted for publication. Heerlen (The Netherlands): Open University, 2013.
[7]	Lodewijkx H.F.M. and Brouwer B., “Some empirical notes on the ‘epo epidemic’ in professional cycling.” Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82 (4): 593-608, 2011.
[8]	Lodewijkx H.F.M. and Brouwer B., “Tour, Giro Vuelta: Rapid progress in cycling performance starts in the 1980s.” International Journal of Sports Science, 2(3): 24-31, 2012.
[9]	El Helou N., Berthelot G., Thibaut V., Tafflet M., Massif H., Campion F. et al., “Tour de France, Giro, Vuelta, and classic European races show a unique progression of road cycling speed in the last 20 years.” Journal of Sports Sciences, 28 (7): 789-796, 2010.
[10]	Perneger T. V., “Speed trends of major cycling races: Does slower mean cleaner?” International Journal of Sports Medicine,31: 261–264, 2010.
[11]	Lucia A., Earnest C. and Arribas C., “The Tour de France: a physiological review.” Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 13: 275-283, 2003.
[12]	Magnier D., Picq P., Debreilly, M., Zingoni P., Haffreingue H. and Bey J.-L., Cycling remembered [In French: Memoire du cyclisme]. Online available: http://www.memoire-du-cyclisme.eu, 2013.
[13]	Codifava G., Cycling climbs. Online available: http://www.salite.ch, 2012.
[14]	Lonkhuyzen M. van, Cycling cols. Online available: http://www. cyclingcols.com, 2012.
[15]	Ejnès G., Bouvet P., Brunel P., Dufourq R., Laget S. et al., Tour de France, 100 years. [In French: Tour de France 100 ans. (Vol. I, II, and III)]. Paris: L’Equipe, 2002.
[16]	Preacher K. J. and Hayes A. F., “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models.” Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891, 2008.
[17]	Hayes A. F. “INDIRECT: An SPSS-macro for estimating indirect path coefficients in regression models.” Online available: http://afhayes.com/spss-sas-and-mplus-macros-and-code.html, 2013.
[18]	Field A., Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd editition). London: Sage, 2009.
[19]	Kerckhoffs R. and Janssens R., Triumph and tragedy on the climbs of the Tour (In Dutch: Triomf en tragiek op de Tourcols). The Hague: Uitgeverij BZZtȏH, 2003.
[20]	Lundby C. and Olsen N. V., “Effects of recombinant human erythropoietin in normal humans.” Journal of Physiology, 589 (6),1265-1271, 2011.
[21]	Bytomski J. R., Moorman III, C. T. and MacAuley D., Oxford American handbook of sports medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
[22]	Kuipers H., “Putative effects of doping in cycling.” [In Dutch: “Vermeende effecten van doping in de wielersport”]. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde, 150, 2643-2645, 2006.
[23]	Brouwer B., Lodewijkx H. F. M. and Kuipers H., “Doping confessions of cyclists revisited.” [In Dutch: “Doping-bekentenissen langs de meetlat”]. Sportpsychologie Bulletin, 20, 24-37, 2009.
[24]	Heuberger J. A. A. C., Cohen-Tervaert J. M., Schepers F. M. L., Vliegenthart A. D. B., Rotmans J. I., Daniels J. M. A., Burggraaf J. and Cohen A. F., “Erythropoietin doping in cycling: Lack of evidence for efficacy and a negative risk–benefit.” British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 2012.
[25]	Lodewijkx H.F.M., Brouwer B., Kuipers H. and Van Hezewijk R., “Overestimated effect of epo administration an aerobic exercise capacity: A meta-analysis.” American Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 1 (2): 17-27, 2013.
[26]	Hopkins W. G., Hawley J. A., and Burke L. M., “Design and analysis of research on sport performance enhancement.” Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 31: 472-485.