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

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
A

Anonymous

Guest
thehog said:
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.
I'm not so sure.

There's a big difference between having actionable data collected and corruption at the UCI.

I would think the drive to remove the UCI from dope testing will become impossible to further ignore.

Getting rid of the passport is not the solution. A neutral third party in charge of testing and reporting probably is.
 
Apr 7, 2009
176
0
0
thehog said:
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?
Agreed, I don't know why UCI didn't open a case. But USADA was supposed to be monitoring testing on American Athletes. If they didn't have the information then, why do they have it now? Because of the Fed investigation? I find that hard to believe. If it's true, they should have been screaming for the information.
 
Apr 7, 2009
176
0
0
sniper said:
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
If it's not a just a case against LA and 'his doctors', why does USADA only bring suit against LA?? They should bring a case against everyone and not let people off for testifying against LA. It's way too biased for statement #1 to hold water.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
mwbyrd said:
If it's not a just a case against LA and 'his doctors', why does USADA only bring suit against LA?? They should bring a case against everyone and not let people off for testifying against LA. It's way too biased for statement #1 to hold water.
You are not paying attention.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
mwbyrd said:
Agreed, I don't know why UCI didn't open a case. But USADA was supposed to be monitoring testing on American Athletes. If they didn't have the information then, why do they have it now? Because of the Fed investigation? I find that hard to believe. If it's true, they should have been screaming for the information.
in (and prior to) 2008 I assume there wasn't any major incentive for USADA to start digging into LA/USPS's past, even though they'd have known about LA being a doper.
They would have lost before even starting any case against him.
Public opinion was still very much in LA's favor. Those were LA's haydays.
Things have obviously changed due to the Landis-emails and the Feds case.
There's nothing particularly mysterious about that.
 
Jul 19, 2010
347
0
0
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.
Same reason the USADA gave a "warning" to US Olympic goalkeeper Hope Solo for a recent positive test. The money making horses are advised to get their **** together and keep things more on the down low.
 
So, Lance now basically has to argue that the biopassport doesn't work. With such an argument, he comes in direct conflict with the UCI. He has to argue that such large fluctuations are actually normal and can be influenced by elevation, etc.

Should be interesting to see how the UCI react. Will they just say "Hey Lance is right, our biopassport is crap" or will they defend it?

As a statistician, I would say that these data should be relatively straightforward to analyze. I'd be interested in what samples they have upon which to base the analysis (since they would require more samples than just Lance's) and what accompanying data they have (temperature, elevation, etc.).
 
Moose McKnuckles said:
So, Lance now basically has to argue that the biopassport doesn't work. With such an argument, he comes in direct conflict with the UCI. He has to argue that such large fluctuations are actually normal and can be influenced by elevation, etc.

Should be interesting to see how the UCI react. Will they just say "Hey Lance is right, our biopassport is crap" or will they defend it?

As a statistician, I would say that these data should be relatively straightforward to analyze. I'd be interested in what samples they have upon which to base the analysis (since they would require more samples than just Lance's) and what accompanying data they have (temperature, elevation, etc.).
Also when you lay his race schedule across the fluctuations you can see that prior to Flanders & the Tour he dropped a bloodbag.

His Flanders result was interesting. He was in the lead chase group.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
mwbyrd said:
Agreed, I don't know why UCI didn't open a case. But USADA was supposed to be monitoring testing on American Athletes. If they didn't have the information then, why do they have it now? Because of the Fed investigation? I find that hard to believe. If it's true, they should have been screaming for the information.
You are not paying attention.

WADA asked for the test results from the Biopassport testing from the UCI for 2 years. The UCI would not give it to them. The finally gave it to them earlier this year.....after they destroyed the samples.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
The best response to someone only interested in winding people up is no response. If they aren't providing anything we haven't heard 100 times, ignore them.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
thehog said:
Also when you lay his race schedule across the fluctuations you can see that prior to Flanders & the Tour he dropped a bloodbag.

His Flanders result was interesting. He was in the lead chase group.
I was standing on top of the Muur when he came by. The Belgians I was with were looking at each other with a WTF look on their face.

Over the years I have I been more interested in the classics because the effects of doping would seem to be less pronounced.

Maybe I'm wrong about that.
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
2
0
Looking back on the discussion of Wigan´s published results, I also found 40 pages of discussion on Armstrong´s 2009 blood values. It seems USADA has finally caught up with the clinic 3 years later. Read some of the old discussions. Fun stuff.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
richtea said:
But what relationships would you be looking for?
I suggest that you or anyone seriously interested in understanding the usada charges, should carefully read this article.


Ashenden: Understanding USADA’s Armstrong charges
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/07/news/ashenden-understanding-usadas-armstrong-charges_227833

even if technical details aren't one's cup of tea, please, read it. Ashended is not making an armstrong-specific charge but just explaining how a review supposed to work. one can easily get an idea how why the uci 'missed' red flags.

thankfully, now that the data is in the open, i am suspecting ashenden will be asked to comment specifically on armstrong rather soon.
 
Got a quick plot created.



85-95 is the 'normal range' (though not sure if thats for the whole population or athletes)

I'm going to have to do some digging about getting plotting the confidence intervals on it, but certainly the range from 112 down to 70 is highly suspicious to me.
 
Catwhoorg said:
Got a quick plot created.



85-95 is the 'normal range' (though not sure if thats for the whole population or athletes)

I'm going to have to do some digging about getting plotting the confidence intervals on it, but certainly the range from 112 down to 70 is highly suspicious to me.
Well done! A year by year graph might be better and then you can draw straight lines top to bottom at the beginning of each race. That will tell the real story.
 
The off-score is a way of judging the relationship between total red cells/Hb and new cells or retlics. Withdrawal or transfusion or EPO used alters the balance. In the old days, a score of 130 or so flagged a rider. As I noted before, we still have not seen data from LA that reaches that level.

The passport is more sophisticated, takes additional factors into account. By comparing values to a baseline, it is a little better at flagging as suspicious values that aren't quite as high. IOW, in the old system, the 130 value was based on what anyone should have. It meant that a rider's value was significant compared to the population at large. In the passport system, the value is compared to what the rider himself should have.

As an analogy, suppose everyone undergoes normal fluctuations in weight. In the old system, you wouldn't flag someone unless he gained or lost, say, 20 pounds in a month, because a study of a large population indicated that would be extremely unusual. In the new system, you might flag a specific individual if he gained ten pounds in a month, because based on his past history, this would be extremely unlikely for him, even though it might be quite plausible for someone else.

So while LA's blood values would not raise a flag based on off-score, they might raise a flag based on passport. There are complex algorithms into which you plug the numbers and allow you to see. My guess is that LA's values did not trigger a flag using these algorithms, either. If they did, the values should have been given to a panel of experts, who would have made the final decision. It may be it went to a panel and they decided he passed. A third possibility, of course, is a coverup.

Assuming it's not a coverup, though, USADA will make their case by combining these values with testimony. E.g., if they can get a teammate to indicate manipulation around the same time a large fluctuation occurred, that would strengthen their case. If they can show this on two or three different occasions, it would be extremely powerful evidence. In this case, the fact that the values did not trigger a positive in the algorithms could be overruled.
 

Bill Murray

BANNED
Jul 12, 2012
26
0
0
Surprised there wasn't more movement in the blood profile. I thought after he stopped publishing them in 09, he would let rip in 2010. But it looks as though he continued on with a very conservative strategy. This will make the witness statements more important, but most of those come from the Postal era.
 
Bill Murray said:
Surprised there wasn't more movement in the blood profile. I thought after he stopped publishing them in 09, he would let rip in 2010. But it looks as though he continued on with a very conservative strategy. This will make the witness statements more important, but most of those come from the Postal era.
You have to remember the Landis stuff had come out in May '10.

I would suggest he was watching his step. He did pull out of a number of races that year and his form was all over the place.
 
Apr 7, 2009
176
0
0
sniper said:
in (and prior to) 2008 I assume there wasn't any major incentive for USADA to start digging into LA/USPS's past, even though they'd have known about LA being a doper.
They would have lost before even starting any case against him.
Public opinion was still very much in LA's favor. Those were LA's haydays.
Things have obviously changed due to the Landis-emails and the Feds case.
There's nothing particularly mysterious about that.
Novel idea here....instead of doing their job in 2008, they wait until now because public opinion has turned on LA?

This doesn't coincide with what Tygart is spouting these days about fair sport and USADA doing their job. Maybe they should have done this in 2008.

I guess maybe it is all 'Political' after all...
 
Apr 7, 2009
176
0
0
Merckx index said:
If they did, the values should have been given to a panel of experts, who would have made the final decision. It may be it went to a panel and they decided he passed. A third possibility, of course, is a coverup.

Assuming it's not a coverup, though, USADA will make their case by combining these values with testimony. E.g., if they can get a teammate to indicate manipulation around the same time a large fluctuation occurred, that would strengthen their case. If they can show this on two or three different occasions, it would be extremely powerful evidence. In this case, the fact that the values did not trigger a positive in the algorithms could be overruled.
The above statements clarify why this whole LA/USADA thing is a total mess!
 
Jul 8, 2009
187
0
0
mwbyrd said:
Novel idea here....instead of doing their job in 2008, they wait until now because public opinion has turned on LA?

This doesn't coincide with what Tygart is spouting these days about fair sport and USADA doing their job. Maybe they should have done this in 2008.

I guess maybe it is all 'Political' after all...
It may be. But I'm hearing that they asked for the data for several years and didn't get it (note - just from multiple clinic comments, haven't seen any links). Are you specifically disputing that?
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
mwbyrd said:
Novel idea here....instead of doing their job in 2008, they wait until now because public opinion has turned on LA?

This doesn't coincide with what Tygart is spouting these days about fair sport and USADA doing their job. Maybe they should have done this in 2008.

I guess maybe it is all 'Political' after all...
This is becoming blatant trolling. mwbyrd has been told at least four times, in the last two or three pages alone, why USADA is only now addresing the samples being debated.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY