8 Things On Lance Armstrong From The "Other Side Of The Grass"

[Max Power]

Michael Ashenden is involved in a long running battle with Ed Coyle over his study of Lance Armstrong's physiology and was a witness for the company that didn't want to pay Armstrong in the trial, so he is not the most unbiased of sources.

There was also concern over false positives from unrine samples in the early EPO tests, so Ashenden is wrong to say it is impossible for EPO to appear from no where. I won't pretend to understand the science of it, but there was a study into this...
http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/cgi/reprint/107/12/4711.pdf

But even if LA did take EPO in 99, it doesn't explain seven tour victories in a row. That's the main point that I can't get past, no matter how others may want me to.

 

[Race Radio]

Michael Ashenden is involved in a long running battle with Ed Coyle over his study of Lance Armstrong's physiology and was a witness for the company that didn't want to pay Armstrong in the trial, so he is not the most unbiased of sources.

There was also concern over false positives from unrine samples in the early EPO tests, so Ashenden is wrong to say it is impossible for EPO to appear from no where. I won't pretend to understand the science of it, but there was a study into this...
http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/cgi/reprint/107/12/4711.pdf

But even if LA did take EPO in 99, it doesn't explain seven tour victories in a row. That's the main point that I can't get past, no matter how others may want me to.

You are going to have to try harder then that

Ashenden is far from the only Scientist to question Coyle's corrupt "research" it has been considered a joke for years.
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/09/coyle-and-armstrong-research-errors.html

Don Catlin, the guy Armstrong said is the best in the business, said Beullens was wrong about the false positives

http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/cgi/content/full/108/5/1778?www.dopingjournal.org

The scientific community agreed with him, not Beullens. There are thousands of EPO test run per year, where are the false positives?

You think that after doping to win the Tour in 1999 Armstrong suddenly gave up? I guess believing in miracles is part of being an Armstrong fan

 

[ChrisE]

But even if LA did take EPO in 99, it doesn't explain seven tour victories in a row. That's the main point that I can't get past, no matter how others may want me to.

You need to read up on the story line here. LA had the most money so he got the best doctor and since he could spend the most money he got the best dope and his body was better at responding to that dope and......

 

[Max Power]

You are going to have to try harder then that

Ashenden is far from the only Scientist to question Coyle's corrupt "research" it has been considered a joke for years.

But the point is, it's in Ashenden's personal interest to put a bad spin on Armstrong. Due to his involvment in the previous case and his personal battle with Coyle over his research, he is not really a neutral observer. If Armstrong somehow proved he did not dope in 99 it would ruin Ashenden's career.

Don Catlin, the guy Armstrong said is the best in the business, said Beullens was wrong about the false positives

The scientific community agreed with him, not Beullens. There are thousands of EPO test run per year, where are the false positives?

Well I don't think there is likely to be as many false positives anymore - a lot of money has gone into EPO testing in the last few years - but there could well have been before this. And where are the false positives? Obviously that's a bit of a silly question if you think about it.

You think that after doping to win the Tour in 1999 Armstrong suddenly gave up? I guess believing in miracles is part of being an Armstrong fan

But even if he went on to dope, we know the products changed every year, we know there was as much suspicion over many of his rivals during his period of wins who were said to have used top clinics; and in the later tours it is more likely that if LA doped, he blood doped rather than took EPO. Yet every time he won. I don't believe it's possible to win seven in a row, and one extraordinary third place come back, all because of EPO. No matter how I look at it, it doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Race Radio]

But the point is, it's in Ashenden's personal interest to put a bad spin on Armstrong. Due to his involvment in the previous case and his personal battle with Coyle over his research, he is not really a neutral observer. If Armstrong somehow proved he did not dope in 99 it would ruin Ashenden's career.

As usual, you make no attempt to refute the large amount of information Ashenden has provided and instead try to position him as part of a grand conspiracy.


You are just going to get banned again if you keep up this silly trolling.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

But the point is, it's in Ashenden's personal interest to put a bad spin on Armstrong. Due to his involvment in the previous case and his personal battle with Coyle over his research, he is not really a neutral observer. If Armstrong somehow proved he did not dope in 99 it would ruin Ashenden's career.

Actually Dr. Ashendens didn't put a bad spin on LA's 1999 samples - he came right out and said it:

"So there is no doubt in my mind he (Lance Armstrong) took EPO during the '99 Tour."

It could "ruin Ashendens career" if someone could prove him wrong - and yet no-one has.
Here is the article- it is online since April and no-one has made any counter argument.

 

[Max Power]

As usual, you make no attempt to refute the large amount of information Ashenden has provided and instead try to position him as part of a grand conspiracy.

No, you see I cited a specific study into false EPO tests, and highlighted that Ashenden has been involved in a long battle with Ed Coyle and was also a witness against Armstrong at the trial. It's no conspiracy to point out that he has a vested personal interest in taking the negative side of the Armstrong issue. His reputation is now based on that.

You are just going to get banned again if you keep up this silly trolling.

You're the person with the snotty tone and insults. Shame you have no answer to my point about EPO not explaining seven wins and a comeback third.

 

[Max Power]

Actually Dr. Ashendens didn't put a bad spin on LA's 1999 samples - he came right out and said it:

"So there is no doubt in my mind he (Lance Armstrong) took EPO during the '99 Tour."

It could "ruin Ashendens career" if someone could prove him wrong - and yet no-one has.
Here is the article- it is online since April and no-one has made any counter argument.

Yes we've just been discussing that article. Here was my post on it:

Michael Ashenden is involved in a long running battle with Ed Coyle over his study of Lance Armstrong's physiology and was a witness for the company that didn't want to pay Armstrong in the trial, so he is not the most unbiased of sources.

There was also concern over false positives from unrine samples in the early EPO tests, so Ashenden is wrong to say it is impossible for EPO to appear from no where. I won't pretend to understand the science of it, but there was a study into this...
http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrar...07/12/4711.pdf

But even if LA did take EPO in 99, it doesn't explain seven tour victories in a row. That's the main point that I can't get past, no matter how others may want me to.

 

[pedaling squares]

Michael Ashenden is involved in a long running battle with Ed Coyle over his study of Lance Armstrong's physiology and was a witness for the company that didn't want to pay Armstrong in the trial, so he is not the most unbiased of sources...

Max Troller, you have a strange perspective on witness testimony. The last time you discussed a court case you suggested that Betsy Andreu should have perjured herself. Michael Ashenden was called as an expert witness - an independent scientist with vast experience with the subject matter. Just because he was called at the behest of the SCA lawyers, does not mean that he is biased. For a scientist to give bunk testimony in his area of expertise is career suicide, as well as being morally outrageous. If you look at Ashenden's CV dating back well in advance of this case, you will see that he had an established expertise and no reason to speak out in favour of one party over another.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

... Shame you have no answer to my point about EPO not explaining seven wins and a comeback third.

How long have you been on this forum?? Have you are your previous incarnations all the way back to TheArbiter learned nothing?

There was no EPO test until 2001 - but even after that EPO is detectable for 2-3 days at most and clear through some athletes in a matter of hours - which is why some athletes risked using it.

However most big name stars moved on to autologous blood transfusions. Some even employed hematologists to help them - there is NO test for autologous blood transfusions.

 

[Race Radio]

Yes we've just been discussing that article. Here was my post on it:

Michael Ashenden is involved in a long running battle with Ed Coyle over his study of Lance Armstrong's physiology and was a witness for the company that didn't want to pay Armstrong in the trial, so he is not the most unbiased of sources.

There was also concern over false positives from unrine samples in the early EPO tests, so Ashenden is wrong to say it is impossible for EPO to appear from no where. I won't pretend to understand the science of it, but there was a study into this...
http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrar...07/12/4711.pdf

But even if LA did take EPO in 99, it doesn't explain seven tour victories in a row. That's the main point that I can't get past, no matter how others may want me to.

Broken record

No matter how many times you post the same thing it will still be wrong.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yes we've just been discussing that article. Here was my post on it:

Michael Ashenden is involved in a long running battle with Ed Coyle over his study of Lance Armstrong's physiology and was a witness for the company that didn't want to pay Armstrong in the trial, so he is not the most unbiased of sources.

There was also concern over false positives from unrine samples in the early EPO tests, so Ashenden is wrong to say it is impossible for EPO to appear from no where. I won't pretend to understand the science of it, but there was a study into this...
http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrar...07/12/4711.pdf

But even if LA did take EPO in 99, it doesn't explain seven tour victories in a row. That's the main point that I can't get past, no matter how others may want me to.

Firstly - your link does not work!!!

Secondly - you are not discussing anything in the article. You are -yet again - discussing Dr. Ashenden,not the substance of what he has to say.

 

[Max Power]

Max Troller, you have a strange perspective on witness testimony. The last time you discussed a court case you suggested that Betsy Andreu should have perjured herself.

Do you think if someone commited perjury in that case they should be prosecuted? Serious question? I may remind you that Frank Andreu said he had never seen Armstrong using EPO and had never talked about it. If it's true that Armstrong was using EPO that year, it seems extraordinary that his training partner, who confessed to using it, wouldn't have known anything about that. Should Frank Andreu be prosecuted?

Michael Ashenden was called as an expert witness - an independent scientist with vast experience with the subject matter. Just because he was called at the behest of the SCA lawyers, does not mean that he is biased.

It doesn't necessarily mean they are bias, but once they have been paid to take a position in a trial, their subsequent career will be to back up their position at that trial. Everything will be seen through the lense of their stance at that time. And he was already involved in a dispute with professor Coyle even at that point. Ashenden is not a neutal party.

 

[Race Radio]

No, you see I cited a specific study into false EPO tests, and highlighted that Ashenden has been involved in a long battle with Ed Coyle and was also a witness against Armstrong at the trial. It's no conspiracy to point out that he has a vested personal interest in taking the negative side of the Armstrong issue. His reputation is now based on that.

Armstrong's own doctor, along with many others in the field, have said that false positives are a myth and that Beullens was wrong and gave detailed reasons why. The test continues to stand the test of time and Beullens has been proven wrong as has Coyle.

Once again you address none of Ashenden's many points and try to say that he is putting his professional reputation at risk in order to take down Armstrong. I assume this is why the UCI hired him for the Biopassport and nobody has disputed any of his findings. Robin Parisotto, another member of the UCI biopasspot team said the exact same thing as Asheden....is he also part of this conspiracy?

Shame you have no answer to my point about EPO not explaining seven wins and a comeback third.

I did not respond because like most of what you post of what you post it made zero sense.

You should not expect to lie, highjacket threads, get banned many times, and have other posters react warmly to you. It would be silly to think this.

 

[Berzin]

As for the 1999 samples, why do you say there HAS to be something wrong with the handling? It sounds like you've prejudged the situation.

That is the explanation bandied about by the Armstrong camp, that the samples did not follow a chain of custody consistent with proper handling of the samples, therefore the results were flawed.

 

[Max Power]

How long have you been on this forum?? Have you are your previous incarnations all the way back to TheArbiter learned nothing?

There was no EPO test until 2001 - but even after that EPO is detectable for 2-3 days at most and clear through some athletes in a matter of hours - which is why some athletes risked using it.

However most big name stars moved on to autologous blood transfusions. Some even employed hematologists to help them - there is NO test for autologous blood transfusions.

So you agree it's unlikely EPO was used in every tour, at least not to any significant amount. This is my point. Why would Armstrong win seven in a row, and a comeback third, all down to doping? There were just as many suspicions about his rivals through the same period, but they were much more inconsistent. Pantani didn't win seven in a row. Ulrich didn't win seven. Many other riders were associated with top clinics that could rival anything Armstrong was contacted with. It seems to me there is more to the story than dope, therefore Armstrong still deserves the credit for his achievements EVEN IF he doped for most of his wins (which I personally don't believe he did).

 

[Race Radio]

In the future if I do not respond to Max Troll, or any of his many others usernames, it is because I do not want to be sucked into his *** cry for attention....not because I think there is any validity in what he has written.

 

[elizab]

Do you think if someone commited perjury in that case they should be prosecuted? Serious question? I may remind you that Frank Andreu said he had never seen Armstrong using EPO and had never talked about it. If it's true that Armstrong was using EPO that year, it seems extraordinary that his training partner, who confessed to using it, wouldn't have known anything about that. Should Frank Andreu be prosecuted?

I'm not going to get into the exact words and detail of it all. Where does it say that Frankie never saw lance use epo? What is the source?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Do you think if someone commited perjury in that case they should be prosecuted? Serious question? I may remind you that Frank Andreu said he had never seen Armstrong using EPO and had never talked about it. If it's true that Armstrong was using EPO that year, it seems extraordinary that his training partner, who confessed to using it, wouldn't have known anything about that. Should Frank Andreu be prosecuted?

Serious question - are you completely ***?

The incident was about what they heard in the hospital room - and the list of banned products Lance admitted to using.
Do you think Lance - or indeed any other athlete - is going to start shooting up like a junkie in front of others? Who saw Frankie use EPO?

 

[auscyclefan94]

So you agree it's unlikely EPO was used in every tour, at least not to any significant amount. This is my point. Why would Armstrong win seven in a row, and a comeback third, all down to doping? There were just as many suspicions about his rivals through the same period, but they were much more inconsistent. Pantani didn't win seven in a row. Ulrich didn't win seven. Many other riders were associated with top clinics that could rival anything Armstrong was contacted with. It seems to me there is more to the story than dope, therefore Armstrong still deserves the credit for his achievements EVEN IF he doped for most of his wins (which I personally don't believe he did).

So he desrves credit for being a manipulative narcisist.
Naiveity or ignorance is the new black according to Max power.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So you agree it's unlikely EPO was used in every tour, at least not to any significant amount. This is my point. Why would Armstrong win seven in a row, and a comeback third, all down to doping? There were just as many suspicions about his rivals through the same period, but they were much more inconsistent. Pantani didn't win seven in a row. Ulrich didn't win seven. Many other riders were associated with top clinics that could rival anything Armstrong was contacted with. It seems to me there is more to the story than dope, therefore Armstrong still deserves the credit for his achievements EVEN IF he doped for most of his wins (which I personally don't believe he did).

What part of BLOOD DOPING dont you understand?

Pantani didnt quite have the oppurtunity to win 7 in a row - as he was dead.

 

[auscyclefan94]

It was funny on an interview i saw with LA about how much he knew about genetic doping and how it was going to be the next thing in cycling.

 

[Max Power]

Armstrong's own doctor, along with many others in the field, have said that false positives are a myth and that Beullens was wrong and gave detailed reasons why. The test continues to stand the test of time and Beullens has been proven wrong as has Coyle.

Well maybe, but it's in the interests of people working for the sport to say this if they don't want to be smeared as "doping doctors". Nobody has proven Beullen to be wrong. It's just theories fighting other theories. At any rate I am confident the modern EPO test is sufficient. It's the early days of the test, which the experient that LA's test was involved in, that I don't have full trust in.

Once again you address none of Ashenden's many points

Once again I did address one of his points.

Robin Parisotto, another member of the UCI biopasspot team said the exact same thing as Asheden....is he also part of this conspiracy?

You're trolling again. I specifally pointed out why it is not a conspiracy.

I did not respond because like most of what you post of what you post it made zero sense.

I believe you did not respond because you know the answer might be favourable to Armstrong, which you cannot and will not accept under any circumstances whatsoever. That is what you are about.

You should not expect to lie, highjacket threads, get banned many times, and have other posters react warmly to you. It would be silly to think this.

I don't expect anything from you. I merely pointed out that your accusation of trolling against me is rather silly when you're the one with the snotty attitude and insults. Glass houses and all that.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

There was also concern over false positives from unrine samples in the early EPO tests, so Ashenden is wrong to say it is impossible for EPO to appear from no where. I won't pretend to understand the science of it, but there was a study into this...
http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrar...07/12/4711.pdf
Your 'study' doesn't stand serious scutiny....

False-positive Epo test concerns unfounded

The brief report by Beullens et al1 is misleading regarding the urine test that the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) uses to detect recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEpo).
The WADA-recommended test is based on immunoelectorphoresis and double blotting (IEF/DB), and was developed by Lasne and de Ceaurriz in 2000.2

full article here: http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/cgi/content/full/108/5/1778?www.dopingjournal.org

 

[Race Radio]

What part of BLOOD DOPING dont you understand?

Pantani didnt quite have the oppurtunity to win 7 in a row - as he was dead.

I think we can all agree that, like all medicine, doping does not effect each rider in the same manner. Does anyone really believe that Riis, or Armstrong, would win one Tour with a level playing field? No rational person would be that silly.

Of course it only helps when you have Walter Viru (Recently busted for running a doping ring) is giving your team doctor advanced notice of "Surprise" controls. It does not hurt that the UCI and ASO look the other way when your team is caught dumping bags of dope.