vayer's argument ... it doesn't hold a lot of water, in the same way as
*all* the lance arguments (pro and anti) don't hold a lot of water.
they're not supported by strong evidence. too many of them come down to
what an individual wants to believe, and are just used as supporting
buttresses for that belief system. vayer's argument seem to boil down
to the fact that "man goes up hill fast? drugs are the only answer."

i'm sure you can give an alalytical response to an argument that itself
is not nearly as analytical as it pretends to be. vayer's statistics
don't wash, no with me anyway. can you compare the times to go up the
same mountain in different races? what about all the contributory
factors, from weather through tactics through where the mountain falls
in a particular race. you also have to account for the overall changes
in the race itself - shorter, flatter, less tiring (though still not
easy). there would also seem to be an assumption on vayer's part that,
on a climb, riders go balls out base to summit. that simply doesn't
hold water. there are, at the end of the day, too many assumptions in
vayer's analysis.

on the other hand, there is a relevence to vayer's argument. michele
ferrari had certain areas of specialisation. vo2 max and hill climbing
being the important ones, where vayer's argument is concerned. maybe
vayer does have a point. but i don't think it's a well made point. but
then, maybe he was afraid of ferrari suing him, and so couched it too
carefully.