The Sidebar Thread

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

My original post has been edited as to remove any not immediately supported facts.

fantastic. I hope there isn't any more such mis-attribution moving forward.

There is no mis-attribution, simply a lack of time or interesting in building a documented case, which is apparently what it would require.

I'll be sure to be more pro-active moving forward so I don't have to retro-actively re-state what's completely obvious to anyone following the thread.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

My original post has been edited as to remove any not immediately supported facts.

fantastic. I hope there isn't any more such mis-attribution moving forward.

There is no mis-attribution, simply a lack of time or interesting in building a documented case, which is apparently what it would require.

as i said, i can reply in kind, and it would achieve two things:
1. it would make you look like the proverbial pot calling the kettle black
2. (more importantly) it would massively clog the thread.
so i propose that any further issues you have, you take them to the sidebar thread or pm.

 

[red_flanders]

I was asked to provide some documentation regarding some of my comments accusing disingenuous posting, strawmen, exaggeration and more. Here is but one example. For quite a while the poster had been making the claim that Floyd Landis confirmed a rumor that Lemond was doping. It was repeated many times, and then it suddenly and amazingly grew into a “peloton-wide” rumor confirmed “over decades”. Which came as quite a surprise to me, how quickly it grew from something DM claimed on the forum to a statement of fact and an expansion into a “decades-long, peloton wide rumor”.

I have never heard about Floyd talking about this rumor so I asked for a confirmation.

Here is a claim that Floyd Landis confirmed a rumor existed.
viewtopic.php?p=1898180#p1898180

Here the rumor is said to be "peloton-wide".
viewtopic.php?p=1898152#p1898152

Here I refute the notion of a "peloton-wide" rumor.
viewtopic.php?p=1898191#p1898191

Here I ask for proof that Landis confirms the rumor existed:
viewtopic.php?p=1898203#p1898203

All very straightforward questions I think, no?

So no response, despite several other posts. Here I ask again for evidence that Landis confirms this rumor:
viewtopic.php?p=1898356#p1898356

Finally a response! But it doesn't answer the simple question, did Landis confirm this rumor? More deflection:
viewtopic.php?p=1898370#p1898370

My response, asking again to show Landis confirmed a rumor:
viewtopic.php?p=1898370#p1898370

Again no answer and I'm asked to "move on":
viewtopic.php?p=1898387#p1898387

I ask again:
viewtopic.php?p=1898392#p1898392

At which point I'm accused of "attacking Floyd", which if you can stomach following the nonsense, is just amazing:
viewtopic.php?p=1898402#p1898402

No response after that which I could find.

Later, DM confirms what I understood all along, that he, the forum poster, had claimed Floyd claimed this was a rumor in the peloton. Which is a far, far cry from Landis claiming this was known in the peloton. But that didn’t stop sniper from carrying on as if it were well-supported fact for multiple posts and wrapping the idea in his every growing “evidence” of an apparent open secret in the peloton.

At the core of the argument, there was nothing there. When challenged, the poster evaded, deflected, and distorted until finally quitting, never simply saying “I don’t have a link for that, it’s just something I read from a DM post”. Which would have ended it.

Make your arguments, but for crying out loud, be accountable when you’re wrong and argue in good faith as you claim. Clearly, obviously that is not what’s happening here. And that is just one example.

 

[sniper]

Re:

...
Later, DM confirms what I understood all along, that he, the forum poster, had claimed Floyd claimed this was a rumor in the peloton. Which is a far, far cry from Landis claiming this was known in the peloton. But that didn’t stop sniper from carrying on as if it were well-supported fact for multiple posts and wrapping the idea in his every growing “evidence” of an apparent open secret in the peloton.

At the core of the argument, there was nothing there. When challenged, the poster evaded, deflected, and distorted until finally quitting, never simply saying “I don’t have a link for that, it’s just something I read from a DM post”. Which would have ended it.

Make your arguments, but for crying out loud, be accountable when you’re wrong and argue in good faith as you claim. Clearly, obviously that is not what’s happening here. And that is just one example.

making stuff up again? shocker.

This seems to be a tough one, but let me explain it again:
the only fact I see confirmed, is the fact that the rumor *exists*. And yes, Floyd adds further confirmation to the *existence* of the rumor.
I don't see the *contents of the rumor itself* confirmed, however, and never said any such thing. Or if you think i did, please provide a link.

Compare: there is a rumor that Nadal got a silent ban.
The *existence* of the rumor is a fact.
But that doesn't mean the contents of the rumor itself is a fact.

 

[DamianoMachiavelli]

Re:

Later, DM confirms what I understood all along, that he, the forum poster, had claimed Floyd claimed this was a rumor in the peloton. Which is a far, far cry from Landis claiming this was known in the peloton.

Actually Floyd said LeMond's dope use was "well known" in the peloton and riders talked about it. I don't know what distinction you are trying to make here.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Later, DM confirms what I understood all along, that he, the forum poster, had claimed Floyd claimed this was a rumor in the peloton. Which is a far, far cry from Landis claiming this was known in the peloton.

Actually Floyd said LeMond's dope use was "well known" in the peloton and riders talked about it. I don't know what distinction you are trying to make here.

The distinction is that this is a claim from you, not from Floyd. For another poster to run with it as if it's some kind of confirmed fact from Landis is wrong. It's certainly inaccurate and misleading.

We don't know who you are, and that's totally fine. But as such, it's a completely unfounded rumor with no authorship, it's just a claim by someone on a cycling forum.

As I said in the thread, I don't doubt the notion that many on Postal thought Lemond was a doper, or that Floyd might have thought so. But without some statement from him on this topic, there is no license to go around claiming it as fact, or a confirmed, "decades-old, peloton-wide" rumor.

The whole "peloton-wide" thing was another exaggeration completely unfounded. The evidence of Lemond doping is thin and speculative, and the problem with that for some people is that they are trying to make it sound like much more than it is, rather than accept the facts.

The moderation issue is that I was asked to provide some evidence of this kind of behavior, where an unfounded claim is made, and when pressed on it ignored, deflected etc. This is but one example, there are many in the thread, including the strawman argument which precipitated all this and the others which other posters have noted.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

...
Later, DM confirms what I understood all along, that he, the forum poster, had claimed Floyd claimed this was a rumor in the peloton. Which is a far, far cry from Landis claiming this was known in the peloton. But that didn’t stop sniper from carrying on as if it were well-supported fact for multiple posts and wrapping the idea in his every growing “evidence” of an apparent open secret in the peloton.

At the core of the argument, there was nothing there. When challenged, the poster evaded, deflected, and distorted until finally quitting, never simply saying “I don’t have a link for that, it’s just something I read from a DM post”. Which would have ended it.

Make your arguments, but for crying out loud, be accountable when you’re wrong and argue in good faith as you claim. Clearly, obviously that is not what’s happening here. And that is just one example.

making stuff up again? shocker.

This seems to be a tough one, but let me explain it again:
the only fact I see confirmed, is the fact that the rumor *exists*. And yes, Floyd adds further confirmation to the *existence* of the rumor.
I don't see the *contents of the rumor itself* confirmed, however, and never said any such thing. Or if you think i did, please provide a link.

Compare: there is a rumor that Nadal got a silent ban.
The *existence* of the rumor is a fact.
But that doesn't mean the contents of the rumor itself is a fact.

I'll ask again. Where does Floyd add this confirmation? You were asked multiple times, it's a simple question. Yet here you are again, claiming Floyd has confirmed this when all we have is a claim by a poster in this thread.

Unless of course you have confirmation. Which would have saved about 30 posts at this point. It was and remains a simple question. Put a link to anywhere Floyd confirms this. It certainly could exist, I just haven't seen it.

I don't know how to make it any more clear...again.

EDIT: Additionally, since you have accused me of "making stuff up again" I'll politely ask you to show where I've ever made anything up with regard to your posts. Thank you. Since my entire post is documented this time, I don't see where you have a leg to stand on. I hope the moderators note this.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

I'll ask again. Where does Floyd add this confirmation? You were asked multiple times, it's a simple question. Yet here you are again, claiming Floyd has confirmed this when all we have is a claim by a poster in this thread.

Unless of course you have confirmation. Which would have saved about 30 posts at this point. It was and remains a simple question. Put a link to anywhere Floyd confirms this. It certainly could exist, I just haven't seen it.

I don't know how to make it any more clear...again.

EDIT: Additionally, since you have accused me of "making stuff up again" I'll politely ask you to show where I've ever made anything up with regard to your posts. Thank you. Since my entire post is documented this time, I don't see where you have a leg to stand on. I hope the moderators note this.

Incidentally, the tenuous Floyd angle is STILL being used despite lacking any reliable confirmation. This is very problematic and very troubling.

viewtopic.php?p=1906596#p1906596

 

[djpbaltimore]

great, so no smoking gun statement after all
also, still waiting for your link to a post or poster claiming "LeMond's anemia was related to his kidneys".
if you have any off topic issues left, please take them to the sidebar thread or pm.

edit: and please appreciate how Lemond confirms what i said about him having been a very plausible beneficiary of EPO treatment.

As requested earlier by Sniper. Here is the brief history of Kidney/ Anemia/ Lemond/ and things unmentionable in this subforum. One poster repeats a flawed argument over and over and over again, resisting repeated attempts to discuss the merits of it, instead arguing in bullet points and word association. This seems like a pretty conclusive pattern.

Sniper stumbles onto the rumor (July 2015)
viewtopic.php?p=1760986#p1760986

StyrbjornSterki gives pertinent medical information
viewtopic.php?p=1761213#p1761213

NeiNeiNei gives pertinent medical information
viewtopic.php?p=1768811#p1768811

Sniper doubles down. Ignoring the earlier corrections to his flawed medical understanding.
viewtopic.php?p=1772499#p1772499
viewtopic.php?p=1774013#p1774013

I patiently correct him on his medical errors.
viewtopic.php?p=1774185#p1774185

The first resurrection of the kidney argument by Sniper.
viewtopic.php?p=1871157#p1871157
viewtopic.php?p=1871199#p1871199

I bump my earlier corrections.
viewtopic.php?p=1871475#p1871475

After a back and forth, Sniper claims to see my point….
viewtopic.php?p=1871669#p1871669

… but not for long. 2nd resurrection. And somehow claims to not know what dialysis is despite researching kidneys since last July? (March 5)
viewtopic.php?p=1873790#p1873790
viewtopic.php?p=1874059#p1874059

Resurrection #3. April 6, 2016
viewtopic.php?p=1894015#p1894015
viewtopic.php?p=1898471#p1898471

I correct the record yet again and ask a single direct question….
viewtopic.php?p=1898786#p1898786

… that is not answered at all.
viewtopic.php?p=1898804#p1898804

I provide links to show that kidney infection is not related to kidney failure
viewtopic.php?p=1899364#p1899364

This post is the most incriminating one IMO, where Sniper now (briefly) takes a whole new tact where he basically discounts all the things he was arguing about before.
viewtopic.php?p=1899773#p1899773

Sniper resurrecting the argument for the 4th time, reverting back to the original theory (April 20, 2016)
viewtopic.php?p=1904812#p1904812
viewtopic.php?p=1905299#p1905299
viewtopic.php?p=1906014#p1906014

 

[sniper]

I'm sorry, but still don't know what your point is.

Here's my point:
Lemond would have made a plausible beneficiary of EPO treatment.

It is based on the following pieces of information which Lemond (and/or his PR team) have put out there in various interviews/articles (there might be more, but this is what I have seen):

- chronic kidney infections as a child
- one kidney
- the shooting damaged his kidney(s)
- anemia in 1989

This is what Lemond himself said about his post-shooting hospital recovery:

"- If I would have had a blood transfusion or EPO administered it would have sped my recovery dramatically."

It pretty much proves my point: Lemond would have made a plausible beneficiary of EPO treatment.

If you have any problems with posters spreading misinformation, why not take it up with Scienceiscool who is contradicting Lemond's one kidney account here:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?p=1894086#p1894086

 

[sniper]

question: if you have chronic urinary tract infections, would antibiotic injections have been the normal course of treatment in the 70s?

certainly nowadays you wouldnt get the antibiotics administered through injections, correct me if wrong, but simply orally.

 

[djpbaltimore]

And that point is still as inherently wrong here as it was every other time you have made it. At no time did LeMond ever have a condition or medical that would've normally been treated with EPO. What did LeMond know that his doctors did not? Or was LeMond perhaps uninformed?

Often antibiotic injections are still used for UTIs. See also Ceftriaxone, Gentamicin, etc

Edit: interesting link from the early 1990s about EPO.
http://msl1.mit.edu/ESD10/kidneys/HndbkHTML/ch20.htm

 

[sniper]

We've seen thousands of cyclists use epo over the years.
I would estimate that around 99.9% of those epo-dopers was medically *less* suited for EPO treatment than Lemond.
It's largely inconsequential whether or not he was the *perfect* kidney patient for EPO treatment.
He had ideal access to EPO, and he has a fairly plausible cover story in place should it ever come to light.

Thanks for clarifying the UTI question, and good link indeed.

 

[sniper]

Re:

...
Edit: interesting link from the early 1990s about EPO.
http://msl1.mit.edu/ESD10/kidneys/HndbkHTML/ch20.htm

interesting indeed.

from the link:

Do all kidney patients need EPO?

No. EPO is needed only by those patients whose hematocrit is less than 30 percent.

....
Some patients may be started on EPO before their hematocrit falls below 29 or 30 percent. In this case, EPO will prevent the feeling of fatigue and low energy levels caused by anemia.

In the interview I linked yesterday Lemond says he lost 70% of his blood volume following the shooting.
I think that means his hematocrit would have been below 30%, correct?
(nb: Lemond even corrects himself: "I lost 60...no, 70% of blood volume")

 

[djpbaltimore]

Not correct. Blood volume is exactly that. The volume of blood. Blood contains cells (RBCs and WBCs) and plasma (serum with antibodies). The hematocrit is the percentage of blood that is RBCs. If you lose blood, your percentages do not change, just the volume (i.e hematocrit would still be normal). However, your total hemoglobin would be less, so that is why trauma victims get transfusions. They would not get EPO for the reasons below (also from my link) and also because making your blood sludgy while bedridden can increase the risk of heart issues. Losing 70% of blood volume is lethal. I don't think LeMond really knows what he is talking about in this case. But I bet his doctors would be just as lost at sea when discussing gear ratios.

How long before I notice a difference in how I feel?

Often, there is a period of several weeks before your hematocrit begins to rise. Most patients will begin to feel better when the hematocrit has risen by five or more points. This may take from one to two months. Some patients may be started on EPO before their hematocrit falls below 29 or 30 percent. In this case, EPO will prevent the feeling of fatigue and low energy levels caused by anemia.

Overall, it is funny that you never answer any direct question but expect others to answer/ address yours. Especially when past history shows that you don't seem to be receptive of anything put to you. Sorry, I had better things to do Saturday night.

 

[blutto]

....don't know if this is relevant to the discussion...

LeMond: The lifestyle, racing in the cold rain and living from day to day between motel rooms can be brutal-it's the toughest sport in the world. Lance went through chemo, then he had a year off where he realized how nice life is in America. I'm telling you, life is good here. I unwisely rushed right back into racing six months later. I was shot in April and I was back in September. I really should have had more of a program like Lance. He was advised properly by medical doctors. My haematocrit [percentage of packed red blood to the volume of whole blood] went down to about 19. Nearly sixty percent of my blood volume was gone and that takes months to get back. I remember going back to Europe at the end of August and only being able to make it one mile into a race. I was doing it because my contract with PDM was contingent that I would start racing again in '88. Plus my contract with La Vie Claire required that I race X number of days in '87; if I hadn't raced again that year they would have been able to cancel my contract. So I was forced to go back.

http://www.roble.net/marquis/coaching/lemond98.html

Cheers

 

[djpbaltimore]

That is a really good find Blutto. The blood volume claim is still troubling. Is he possibly using this term incorrectly instead of the more accurate term 'plasma volume'? Transfusions would still have been the standard treatment.

The next level of blood loss occurs with the Class 3 hemorrhage, which references loss of 30 to 40 percent of total blood volume. This could be around 3 to 4 pints of blood, for those keeping track. Blood transfusion is usually necessary with a hemorrhage of this magnitude, according to Alton.

The final classification of hemorrhaging, Class 4, occurs when a person loses over 40 percent of their blood volume. A hemorrhage so severe requires immediate and major resuscitative help, or else the strain on the body’s circulatory system will be too great to survive. The heart will no longer be able to maintain blood pressure and circulation, Alton said, so organs will fail and the patient will slip into a comatose state preceding death.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/breaking-point-how-much-blood-can-human-body-lose-350792

EDIT: Never mind about the 'plasma volume' possibility. The more I think about it the less sense that would make. The numbers don't add up. I think losing that much plasma would also be lethal and would actually raise the crit if there was not a concomitant loss of cellular material.

 

[sniper]

Re:

Transfusions would still have been the standard treatment.

Yes, but not in that year.
As Lemond himself claims (true or not) in the audio interview, there was an unexpected flood of AIDS patients where he was hospitalized, and so due to the risk of contamination/infection the doctors weren't allowed to give him blood transfusions.

EPO otoh...in a hospital almost next door to Amgen...Montgomery in the mix...

 

[blutto]

Re:

That is a really good find Blutto. The blood volume claim is still troubling. Is he possibly using this term incorrectly instead of the more accurate term 'plasma volume'? Transfusions would still have been the standard treatment.

The next level of blood loss occurs with the Class 3 hemorrhage, which references loss of 30 to 40 percent of total blood volume. This could be around 3 to 4 pints of blood, for those keeping track. Blood transfusion is usually necessary with a hemorrhage of this magnitude, according to Alton.

The final classification of hemorrhaging, Class 4, occurs when a person loses over 40 percent of their blood volume. A hemorrhage so severe requires immediate and major resuscitative help, or else the strain on the body’s circulatory system will be too great to survive. The heart will no longer be able to maintain blood pressure and circulation, Alton said, so organs will fail and the patient will slip into a comatose state preceding death.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/breaking-point-how-much-blood-can-human-body-lose-350792

EDIT: Never mind about the 'plasma volume' possibility. The more I think about it the less sense that would make. The numbers don't add up. I think losing that much plasma would also be lethal and would actually raise the crit if there was not a concomitant loss of cellular material.

....if you have the time you may want to plow thru the following which includes some equivalences btwn various measures that could help you decipher some of the measurement issues you brought up....my quick reading of the article seems to point to the fact that LeMond was in fairly dangerous territory ( due to initial blood loss and after effects of the injuries ...which other sources have explained and we are all pretty aware of/or should be by this point in this discussion so no sources...)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3226154/

Cheers

 

[aphronesis]

Yes, I bled out over 40% a couple of years later in NY and transfusions were not encouraged in some places unless you had means and a family member willing to give. But there was also a lot of urban myth and lack of knowledge that could be played upon to suit various narratives.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

That is a really good find Blutto. The blood volume claim is still troubling. Is he possibly using this term incorrectly instead of the more accurate term 'plasma volume'? Transfusions would still have been the standard treatment.

The next level of blood loss occurs with the Class 3 hemorrhage, which references loss of 30 to 40 percent of total blood volume. This could be around 3 to 4 pints of blood, for those keeping track. Blood transfusion is usually necessary with a hemorrhage of this magnitude, according to Alton.

The final classification of hemorrhaging, Class 4, occurs when a person loses over 40 percent of their blood volume. A hemorrhage so severe requires immediate and major resuscitative help, or else the strain on the body’s circulatory system will be too great to survive. The heart will no longer be able to maintain blood pressure and circulation, Alton said, so organs will fail and the patient will slip into a comatose state preceding death.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/breaking-point-how-much-blood-can-human-body-lose-350792

EDIT: Never mind about the 'plasma volume' possibility. The more I think about it the less sense that would make. The numbers don't add up. I think losing that much plasma would also be lethal and would actually raise the crit if there was not a concomitant loss of cellular material.

....if you have the time you may want to plow thru the following which includes some equivalences btwn various measures that could help you decipher some of the measurement issues you brought up....my quick reading of the article seems to point to the fact that LeMond was in fairly dangerous territory ( due to initial blood loss and after effects of the injuries ...which other sources have explained and we are all pretty aware of/or should be by this point in this discussion so no sources...)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3226154/

Cheers

Link please. Just kidding. Thank you, Blutto. That was informative. I would continue to discount the numbers that LeMond has said, but I now think it is more than likely that he had anemia during his stay at the ICU.

I would like a link from Sniper about EPO being used for trauma victims in 1987. Remember the clinical trial cohort was for CKD patients. Transfusions would still be the normal treatment for trauma, yes or no? The blood test for HIV was developed in 1985. Patients might've been scared of blood due to Ryan White's story (and that of other hemophiliacs), but I think the HIV thing is irrelevant in this context. The blood bank would've tested for HIV, so the doctors should not have had any qualms about using it. I'm deeply skeptical on that claim.

https://www.aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/aids-timeline/

 

[aphronesis]

There were recurrent scandals though and gaps in testing. And I agree with you djp that his volume numbers are likely too high.

 

[sniper]

I'm merely repeating what Lemond said in the interview:
they wouldn't give him transfusions because of the risk of HIV infection.
whether that's true or not...dunno.

also: i've never claimed Lemond's story is a sound story. It cleary isn't.

My personal hunch: he was either close to being an ideal recipient of EPO treatment, or he's trying to recreate the story to make it look like he was, anticipating that his use of EPO might at some point leak into the press...and guess what, it did almost leak (1990 Dutch whistleblower newspaper article + 1999 Castoings blog + rumors in the peloton (Dhaenens, Boogerd, etc.))

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re:

There were recurrent scandals though and gaps in testing. And I agree with you djp that his volume numbers are likely too high.

Incidentally, if a person was infected with HIV and donated blood within the next 2 or 3 days, their blood would not have been 'HIV positive' according to the tests at the time. And that blood would've been in the blood bank. So, the risk was not zero and that could account for the notion that universal testing was not actually universal. By 1995, the risk of acquiring HIV through transfusion was on the order of 1 in 500,000 (link). But like you mentioned, it was a different time socially in the mid 80s, when 'HIV positive' meant 'death sentence'. I don't see any good numbers for 1987, but the risk would've been higher on the coasts. Some people were definitely avoiding surgery due to the fear of needing transfusions.

http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page=kb-07-02-09#S2.2X

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

There were recurrent scandals though and gaps in testing. And I agree with you djp that his volume numbers are likely too high.

Incidentally, if a person was infected with HIV and donated blood within the next 2 or 3 days, their blood would not have been 'HIV positive' according to the tests at the time. And that blood would've been in the blood bank. So, the risk was not zero and that could account for the notion that universal testing was not actually universal. By 1995, the risk of acquiring HIV through transfusion was on the order of 1 in 500,000 (link). But like you mentioned, it was a different time socially in the mid 80s, when 'HIV positive' meant 'death sentence'. I don't see any good numbers for 1987, but the risk would've been higher on the coasts. Some people were definitely avoiding surgery due to the fear of needing transfusions.

http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page=kb-07-02-09#S2.2X

this is interesting, but what bearing does it have on Lemond's own account of events? (honest question)