ArmstrongÂ’s 2008-12 samples point to blood doping.

Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
Armstrong’s 2008-12 samples point to blood doping.

According to NY Daily News USADA has 38 recent blood samples. Some contain strong evidence of blood doping.

Article
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i-team/u-s-anti-doping-agency-studies-lance-armstrong-2009-blood-attempt-convict-cheater-article-1.1113450


2008-2012 blood parameters
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxueWRuZG9jc3xneDo1Mjk0MWEyZTk5YTNmMmMw&pli=1

I quickly scanned the parameters. Indeed his hemoglobin and % reticulocytes fluctuate in some cases wildly. the off-score is also all over the place.
 
May 6, 2011
452
0
0
What is the expected level of variance in these parameters under normal/clean conditions?
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
Some interesting quotes from the article.

Three days after USADA made the shocking claim, on June 15, the organization sent Armstrong and his attorneys a spreadsheet and two graphs reflecting the lab tests on the 38 samples.
wait a minute, i though the usada was hiding the evidence

Asked about the hematocrit numbers without being told whose they belonged to, Gary Wadler, an associate professor of medicine at Hofstra North Shore-LIJ School of Medicine, said the deviation was suspicious and would demand an explanation from any physician. "That would ring bells," said Wadler. "That would certainly require some explanation as to why there was such an aberration. From a strictly medical point of view, that's a little unusual."
so, wadler did not know who the suspicious samples belonged to. either the daily news isn’t telling the full story or wadler is a telepathic hater.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
python said:
Some interesting quotes from the article.



wait a minute, i though the usada was hiding the evidence


so, wadler did not know who the suspicious samples belonged to. either the daily news isn’t telling the full story or wadler is a telepathic hater.
wadler just says it's "a bit unusual" and that it requires "an explanation".
that's certainly nothing new, damning or challenging to LA. The same is true for the 2001 TdS samples: they were "suspicious" etc, but would not count as hard evidence of blloddoping since alternative scenarios would theoretically be able to explain the values.
One (part of an) explanation could be changes in height, etc, as also noted in the respective cyclingnews article on this.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-usada-has-38-armstrong-blood-samples-from-2008-to-2012
It is expected that Armsrong will challenge this evidence “by summoning medical experts who may say that a person's hematocrit score could conceivably jump 7.5 percentage points in 16 days because of external influences like changes in altitude and heavy perspiration.” For example, he was in Aspen, Colorado, USA, at nearly 8000 feet above sea level between the two above-mentioned tests.
In other words, there has to be a bit more than "a bit unusual" values in the LA samples for USADA to call this evidence of blooddoping.
And I'm confident that indeed there is more.
 
May 6, 2011
452
0
0
Does anyone know how to make sense of these numbers? Without putting them in a spreadsheet - you see HCT, hemoglobin, & offscore spike markedly during June 2009. But then in July during the TDF they seem to fall back a bit although the offscore stays higher than during the Giro (and test results prior to the Giro). What does the offscore actually measure?
 
Eyeballs Out said:
If Armstrong knew there was no chance of being sanctioned then why would he bother doing anything different ?
Well yes, but it's always a good idea to cover your tracks, you know, just in case things change in the future and your shield is shattered. :D
 
richtea said:
Does anyone know how to make sense of these numbers? Without putting them in a spreadsheet - you see HCT, hemoglobin, & offscore spike markedly during June 2009. But then in July during the TDF they seem to fall back a bit although the offscore stays higher than during the Giro (and test results prior to the Giro). What does the offscore actually measure?
The only way to make sense of them is to put them into a spreadsheet, I'll be doing that this weekend if no-one beats me to it.

Offscore:
"The stimulation index is defined as Hb (g/L) minus sixty times the square root of the percentage of red blood cells identified as reticulocytes"

Its a useful little parameter, as you normally expect Hb and ret% to change in a similar way.
 
May 6, 2011
452
0
0
Should it normally be relatively stable, or should it vary over time? Does a high offscore have a straightforward physical interpretation? Sorry for the questions, I would just like to understand the data a bit better.
 
Mar 12, 2010
305
0
0
Eyeballs Out said:
Just another 38 passed tests to add on as far as the world's most tested athlete is concerned. Similar to those 1999 EPO-laden urine samples
Well, since he has passed "over 500 tests, and has NEVER failed" then this doesn't mean anything right?!;)

Haha, and he wonders why the public has it out for him....he sounds like Barry Bonds more and more. Birds of a feather...

Burn him down USADA
 
Apr 7, 2009
176
0
0
python said:
According to NY Daily News USADA has 38 recent blood samples. Some contain strong evidence of blood doping.

Article
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i-team/u-s-anti-doping-agency-studies-lance-armstrong-2009-blood-attempt-convict-cheater-article-1.1113450


2008-2012 blood parameters
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxueWRuZG9jc3xneDo1Mjk0MWEyZTk5YTNmMmMw&pli=1

I quickly scanned the parameters. Indeed his hemoglobin and % reticulocytes fluctuate in some cases wildly. the off-score is also all over the place.
Regardless of guilt, does anyone find it interested that USADA has waited until 2012 to start pressing the issue against LA? Why didn't this process start in 2008?

This is a bigger issue to me.
 
mwbyrd said:
Regardless of guilt, does anyone find it interested that USADA has waited until 2012 to start pressing the issue against LA? Why didn't this process start in 2008?

This is a bigger issue to me.
How could it start in in 2008 when they didn't have enough test data.

Besides the UCI doesn't share passport data with the Federations.

This is the first time USADA have had it in their possession.

Is that interesting enough for you?

You might want to ask why the UCI didn't do anything with the data results.
 
The confessions and witness accounts from the others will be what sinks him more than this. Until USADA got that, and from some very respected riders (Hincapie, Zabriskie, JV, etc.), they probably didn't want to pull the trigger on just Floyd, Tyler and these numbers.

I also suspect there's more, plenty more, to what USADA is going to have to say. I can't imagine it's just some blood numbers, and "Andy Pettite" like confessions. They had to have seen how the Clemens and Bonds situations went and Tygart and his team are going to make absolute certain that all their i's are dotted and t's are crossed. Or so one would imagine.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
thehog said:
How could it start in in 2008 when they didn't have enough test data.

Besides the UCI doesn't share passport data with the Federations.

This is the first time USADA have had it in their possession.

Is that interesting enough for you?

You might want to ask why the UCI didn't do anything with the data results.
Boom.

Paddy certainly has some 'splaining to do. No wonder Travis has kept this DB in the dark.
 
Apr 7, 2009
176
0
0
thehog said:
How could it start in in 2008 when they didn't have enough test data.

Besides the UCI doesn't share passport data with the Federations.

This is the first time USADA have had it in their possession.

Is that interesting enough for you?

You might want to ask why the UCI didn't do anything with the data results.
What do you mean, they didn't have enough information in 2008, but they do now? So it takes several years to determine if someone doped? I call BS. There cannot be a system that's so stacked against someone.

Check out the article on Velonews.com about how House of Representatives member Jim Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican, sent a letter on Thursday asking ONDCP director Gil Kerlikowske to investigate how the sports doping watchdogs spend about $9 million a year in U.S. taxpayer funding.

This was just posted from the article on Velonews.com from Tygart: “The case against all those involved in the USPS Pro-Cycling Team Doping Conspiracy, including Lance Armstrong was not brought lightly,” the statement read. ” We are well aware of his popularity and the admirers he has on Capitol Hill and elsewhere, but our responsibility is to clean athletes who demand that USADA protect their right to a level playing field by eradicating drug use from sport. They rightly depend upon USADA to ensure that no matter how famous or anonymous, we will treat each alleged offender the same. USADA accomplishes this directive when it has sufficient evidence and not on any other basis. Any decision to sanction an athlete is the result of multi-level review by persons independent of USADA including a panel of arbitrators following a full evidentiary hearing with a right of appeal where, witness testimony is given under oath and subject to cross examination and which can be open to the public.

“The evidence is overwhelming, and were we not to bring this case, we would be complicit in covering up evidence of doping, and failing to do our job on behalf of those we are charged with protecting. We will reach out to Congressman Sensenbrenner and offer to come in and discuss the process, which is the same in all cases whether it involves high profile athletes or those who are not. We will also offer to brief the Congressman on how USADA is funded and the oversight that is provided by ONDCP. USADA is an open and transparent organization and welcomes to opportunity to fully address the Congressman’s inquiry.”

Tygart states that their mission is to eradicate drug use from sport. That's fine by me, but how does going after Armstrong - part of the 'old school' time - accomplish this?

Second bold point, "we would be complicit in covering up evidence of doping". So they wait until LA has retired from cycling to go after him? Why didn't they investigate him while he was still a professional cyclist if they we so sure of him doping? Hmm...I think USADA would have some explaining to do.

NOTE: I realize LA moved on to Triathlon and that muddies the waters because he is still 'active', but USADA has made no mention of LA's triathlon performances.
 
mwbyrd said:
What do you mean, they didn't have enough information in 2008, but they do now? So it takes several years to determine if someone doped? I call BS. There cannot be a system that's so stacked against someone.

Check out the article on Velonews.com about how House of Representatives member Jim Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican, sent a letter on Thursday asking ONDCP director Gil Kerlikowske to investigate how the sports doping watchdogs spend about $9 million a year in U.S. taxpayer funding.

This was just posted from the article on Velonews.com from Tygart: “The case against all those involved in the USPS Pro-Cycling Team Doping Conspiracy, including Lance Armstrong was not brought lightly,” the statement read. ” We are well aware of his popularity and

Second bold point, "we would be complicit in covering up evidence of doping". So they wait until LA has retired from cycling to go after him? Why didn't they investigate him while he was still a professional cyclist if they we so sure of him doping? Hmm...I think USADA would have some explaining to do.

NOTE: I realize LA moved on to Triathlon and that muddies the waters because he is still 'active', but USADA has made no mention of LA's triathlon performances.




Did you read my post at all? The UCI has the passport information not USADA.

If a case was to be opened it would have to be by the UCI.

USADA does not have access to this information.

How could they open the case without the data?

Again the question remains. Why didn't the UCI open a case based on these results?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
mwbyrd said:
What do you mean, they didn't have enough information in 2008, but they do now? So it takes several years to determine if someone doped? I call BS. There cannot be a system that's so stacked against someone.

Check out the article on Velonews.com about how House of Representatives member Jim Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican, sent a letter on Thursday asking ONDCP director Gil Kerlikowske to investigate how the sports doping watchdogs spend about $9 million a year in U.S. taxpayer funding.

This was just posted from the article on Velonews.com from Tygart: “The case against all those involved in the USPS Pro-Cycling Team Doping Conspiracy, including Lance Armstrong was not brought lightly,” the statement read. ” We are well aware of his popularity and the admirers he has on Capitol Hill and elsewhere, but our responsibility is to clean athletes who demand that USADA protect their right to a level playing field by eradicating drug use from sport. They rightly depend upon USADA to ensure that no matter how famous or anonymous, we will treat each alleged offender the same. USADA accomplishes this directive when it has sufficient evidence and not on any other basis. Any decision to sanction an athlete is the result of multi-level review by persons independent of USADA including a panel of arbitrators following a full evidentiary hearing with a right of appeal where, witness testimony is given under oath and subject to cross examination and which can be open to the public.

“The evidence is overwhelming, and were we not to bring this case, we would be complicit in covering up evidence of doping, and failing to do our job on behalf of those we are charged with protecting. We will reach out to Congressman Sensenbrenner and offer to come in and discuss the process, which is the same in all cases whether it involves high profile athletes or those who are not. We will also offer to brief the Congressman on how USADA is funded and the oversight that is provided by ONDCP. USADA is an open and transparent organization and welcomes to opportunity to fully address the Congressman’s inquiry.”

Tygart states that their mission is to eradicate drug use from sport. That's fine by me, but how does going after Armstrong - part of the 'old school' time - accomplish this?

Second bold point, "we would be complicit in covering up evidence of doping". So they wait until LA has retired from cycling to go after him? Why didn't they investigate him while he was still a professional cyclist if they we so sure of him doping? Hmm...I think USADA would have some explaining to do.

NOTE: I realize LA moved on to Triathlon and that muddies the waters because he is still 'active', but USADA has made no mention of LA's triathlon performances.
How would ignoring the worst organized doping programme in the history of cycling, if not all sport (with actors still involved in the sport), not be a great start in ripping the cancer out at the root?
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
mwbyrd said:
...
Tygart states that their mission is to eradicate drug use from sport. That's fine by me, but how does going after Armstrong - part of the 'old school' time - accomplish this?
(...)
are you serious?

1. It's not just a case against LA, also against doctors and a DS with direct involvement in today's peloton.

2. IF the present peloton is any cleaner than previous years, it's largely owing to the Fed+USADA cases against LA and co. Many current riders are simply too scared to dope heavy duty cuz they're seeing in front of their eyes how past dopers are being publicly hanged.

3. see scottsocall's post

4. see various other threads
 
I'm a fried this will destroy the passport program. With this data in the wild other athletes who come under review will ask the UCI why they didn't act on this set of data. Its a perfectly good defence.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY