Armstrong wins because he trains harder/smarter . . . not doping

[byu123]

I think you're on to something BYU - I really want to see this now. Contador vs. a Husky hill climb up Ventoux. They'd probably have to shave the dog so he could deal with the heat.

Or . . . maybe we could get Contador AND Armstrong on a tandem bike up Ventoux vs. the sled dog. Better yet, since the VO2 max of the dog is 240 and bikers top out at mid 80s you could get a triple tandem bike and throw Leipheimer in the mix as well so the collective VO2max is roughly equal. All three of them in their Astana kits and all killin it up Ventoux against the dog. I'll bet they could make a fortune on the sponsorship for that one. Someone contact the LiveStrong Foundation. They could do it for charity and donate proceeds to cancer.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Any relation?

twitter.com/byu123

@lancearmstrong Lance . . . how much do you weigh now? How much did you weigh in 1999 and 2005?
2:33 PM Jun 29th from web in reply to lancearmstrong
@johanbruyneel I've no problem with you not selecting @hornerakg, but not releasing a 37 years old who worked his a$$ off 4u and team, WHY??
2:28 PM Jun 29th from web in reply to johanbruyneel
@johanbruyneel Johan why not release Horner to ride for someone else if he wasn't good enough for Astana? http://tiny.cc/r6AW3
3:32 PM Jun 26th from web in reply to johanbruyneel
@lancearmstrong In 140 or less what are "TT intervals" for a 7 time TDF winner one week before start of TDF? Distance, speed, reps?
1:43 PM Jun 25th from web in reply to lancearmstrong
@lancearmstrong "Fawcett attended the University of Texas at Austin . . ." http://tiny.cc/Omclk
11:03 AM Jun 25th from web in reply to lancearmstrong
@lancearmstrong Farrah Fawcett dies of cancer at 62. http://tiny.cc/WRGJy
11:00 AM Jun 25th from web in reply to lancearmstrong
@lancearmstrong When do you start to taper training for TDF?
2:45 PM Jun 24th from web in reply to lancearmstrong
@lancearmstrong "Rocketman"=NewNickname "It looked like they had rockets on the back of their bikes when they took off" http://tiny.cc/TBTUC
3:12 PM Jun 22nd from web in reply to lancearmstrong
@rushchris Where did your read that Lance was 2 kilos lighter than pervious TDF starts. I was wondering this very fact.
9:25 PM Jun 21st from web in reply to rushchris
@lancearmstrong Congrats on Nevada City Classic win. Awesome display of power. What a stud! Shot across the bow of the TDF Peloton . . .
6:59 PM Jun 21st from web in reply to lancearmstrong
@lancearmstrong here is @janibrajkovic pic with GPS link http://mypict.me/show.php?i... Be very cool 2 c where you have done ur rides
9:37 AM Jun 18th from web in reply to lancearmstrong
@lancearmstrong checkng @janibrajkovic ,he posts pics of rides in Solvenia. Uses some sort of Google GPS maplink would b cool 2 c 4 ur pics
9:34 AM Jun 18th from web in reply to lancearmstrong
@trainright http://twitpic.com/7m22o - Lance . . . notice the "Livestrong" band at bottom of kit on left leg. Other pic has no such ban ...
9:54 AM Jun 17th from TwitPic
@lancearmstrong TT Math time:Levi beats Contador:18sec Cast/LeonTT, Armstrong beats Levi:45sec AspenTT = Armstrong by 1min3sec @ MonacoTT?
1:03 PM Jun 16th from web in reply to lancearmstrong
@lancearmstrong LIVESTRONG Pinewood Derby takes 1st place. http://twitpic.com/578mk http://twitpic.com/578et Davin saw u summit Palomar Mt
10:47 PM Jun 12th from web
@lancearmstrong Pantani finish 2000 Giro 1hr back yet beat ("gift" aside) the 1999 TDF winner on Ventoux in same year. A 4shadow 4u in TDF?
3:24 PM May 15th from web in reply to lancearmstrong
http://twitpic.com/578t5 - Davin and LiveStrong won! Davin getting certificate for 1st place.
10:34 PM May 14th from TwitPic
http://twitpic.com/578et - Davin and LiveStrong Pinewood Derby car before the race!
10:25 PM May 14th from TwitPic
Going to homedepot to get supplies for 25 rubberband gun kits for cubscouts to make as part of Cub Scout blue/gold dinner event. I am c ...
4:37 PM Feb 3rd from txt
Checking out Twitter on Facebook ability
4:26 PM Feb 3rd from web

 

[Anonymous]

When I read this passage in the L2L book I interpreted it differently - that there was corruption in the UCI and the positive test was deliberately ignored. In fact there was great concern that Armstrong would sue them but for some reason he didn't!

I would read it again because that is presented as one unlikely possibility, but the greatest probability is that he was masking. That is why the book points out that Lance soon let that issue drop completely after initially asking a question about it. The book clearly states that masking would have made the results look normal, and that it is suspicious that Armstrong just let it go quickly, and that it is unlikely that at that time the UCI would have suppressed the results knowing what all scientists did about the issue. The lab guy doesn't remember a positive, but does know that the test for it was almost certainly performed on the samples that Armstrong gave that year multiple times and nothing showed. I would read it again.

Again, it is just one bit of the evidence that when taken as a whole is hard to counter. If it was just this one thing, maybe, but when the evidence mounts, it is hard to think that EVERYTHING is just a coincidence or a French conspiracy.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Ninety5rpm....you should be in the FBI.

 

[byu123]

Any relation?

[/font]

Not me but cool nic though. Must be an evil imposter channeling me . . . or someone here who has entirely too much time on their hands. I've got an excuse . . . I'm on vacation day at home watching the kids while wife works double time shift.

 

[DavidT]

Or . . . maybe we could get Contador AND Armstrong on a tandem bike up Ventoux vs. the sled dog. Better yet, since the VO2 max of the dog is 240 and bikers top out at mid 80s you could get a triple tandem bike and throw Leipheimer in the mix as well so the collective VO2max is roughly equal. All three of them in their Astana kits and all killin it up Ventoux against the dog. I'll bet they could make a fortune on the sponsorship for that one. Someone contact the LiveStrong Foundation. They could do it for charity and donate proceeds to cancer.

That's not how VO2max in the above context works. Their absolute VO2max would increase but their relative VO2max (which is the context above) would not.

 

[pmcg76]

There is a recent post by Joe Papp that confirms what has been written to you several times. The greatest benefit to PED's is the ability to train and race even harder without the breakdown of the body that would occur without them. There are many tests that are not positive, but defy all physiological knowledge. One clear example is the maintenance of a testosterone level throughout a 3 week tour. You see guys with levels in the 3rd week similar to the ones they have in the first, and there is no real answer. Maybe their T/E ratio never exceeds the legal limit, but that does not change the fact that it defies physiological knowledge of what happens to the body in extended periods of extreme physical exertion.

You keep digging for the answer that will make us wrong. At some point, put down the shovel and read what has been posted in counter argument about all of that with an open mind. Your focus is now on proving us all wrong. Take some time off from that and look into other evidence, not just the next thing you find to prove you are right. I have a feeling that once you drop the idea that we cannot possibly know what we are talking about and just go neutral on the subject, you like many will see the truth. It is staring you in the face, only you keep shoving it aside to find the next proof you are right.

Cheers.

Agreed, look at this logically, as I pointed out in an earlier post about Lance haters which BYU conveniently ignored, we didnt just suddenly hate Lance because of his success. We looked at his career from the beginning, looked at his totally dominating performances post cancer, his attitude to anti-dopers, all his competitors getting busted, his physical capabilities and you said to yourself logically thinking, something aint right here.

BYU is saying Lance trained harder than anybody eles, how do we know this? because some teammates say so, what else would you expect them to say? ah, it was because he was doping!!! we would need to compare the notes of all the top guys to see what they do in their training. I think they just used Ullrich as the flip-side to Lance because it was obvious he was not the most dedicated. What type of training was Lance doing before he got cancer, could he have been that much more dedicated that he went from 35th in the Tour to 7 time winner. If Carmichael was his trainer, what was Ferrari doing with Lance and why was it a secret?


If BYU is saying Lance was the best because he doped and trained harder, I can buy that. Not that he beat all the doped guys clean because he trained harder, not logical at all.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

You keep digging for the answer that will make us wrong. At some point, put down the shovel and read what has been posted in counter argument about all of that with an open mind. Your focus is now on proving us all wrong. Take some time off from that and look into other evidence, not just the next thing you find to prove you are right.

This is way off topic, but, relevant to these particular comments. Someone going by the name byu123 is almost certainly a "God fearing" Mormon. No offense to Mormons, this applies to all believers (be they believers in "God" or in the Flying Spaghetti Monster): they are accustomed to believing what they want to believe, or what they've been told is true, despite the evidence (or lack thereof).

That makes it very difficult to use evidence-based reasoning to persuade believers of anything. This result is arguably the greatest harm in raising children to believe in the actual existence of mythical conceptions such as God.

 

[elapid]

I'm intrigued by your last paragraph and would be grateful for some specific reading matter about these markers.

This has been covered in other threads, but here is what you are looking for:

Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) is a marker for testicular cancer and is also a performance enhancer (indirectly). The normal reference range for hCG is < 5 mU/mL. Lance's hCG was 109,000 mU/mL when diagnosed with testicular cancer (as stated on p. 91 in Lance Armstrong's "It's Not About The Bike"). He was tested multiple times by the UCI prior to this and these values would have been elevated for at least 3-6 months prior to his diagnosis. hCG increases natural testosterone levels, particularly after the long-term suppression of testosterone synthesis that results from anabolic steroid abuse. Furthermore, DeLeo and others (Effects of human chorionic gonadotropin administration on testicular testosterone secretion during prolonged exercise. Fertil Steril 73:864-866, 2000) showed that hCG increases testosterone production because it binds to receptors on Leydig cells and these cells are responsible for the synthesis and secretion of testosterone.

 

[Anonymous]

This is way off topic, but, relevant to these particular comments. Someone going by the name byu123 is almost certainly a "God fearing" Mormon. No offense to Mormons, this applies to all believers (be they believers in "God" or in the Flying Spaghetti Monster): they are accustomed to believing what they want to believe, or what they've been told is true, despite the evidence (or lack thereof).

That makes it very difficult to use evidence-based reasoning to persuade believers of anything. This result is arguably the greatest harm in raising children to believe in the actual existence of mythical conceptions such as God.

Not to get into an in depth discussion, but I am a believer (not Mormon) and we are not all the same. I believe what I have experienced and through my experience have seen truths and falsehoods about what I have been told by others. I fully believe in a personal relationship with God; personal being the operative word.

I would suggest that for everything in the universe to have been born of something else except for the universe itself is not a logical position, but that is personal belief. I was an atheist for many years and then the idea that the universe originated out of nothing, means nothing, and proceeds nowhere became a logical situation with which I no longer had faith.

Now, we'd probably better just stop there as if you think my opinions on cycling are strong and definitive, you should hear what I think about religion. (and no, you don't already know)

Also, please do not read any sarcasm or antagonism in the above words as they are not intended as such. I just try to express myself clearly because beating around the bush just takes too much time.

 

[Anonymous]

This has been covered in other threads, but here is what you are looking for:

Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) is a marker for testicular cancer and is also a performance enhancer (indirectly). The normal reference range for hCG is < 5 mU/mL. Lance's hCG was 109,000 mU/mL when diagnosed with testicular cancer (as stated on p. 91 in Lance Armstrong's "It's Not About The Bike"). He was tested multiple times by the UCI prior to this and these values would have been elevated for at least 3-6 months prior to his diagnosis. hCG increases natural testosterone levels, particularly after the long-term suppression of testosterone synthesis that results from anabolic steroid abuse. Furthermore, DeLeo and others (Effects of human chorionic gonadotropin administration on testicular testosterone secretion during prolonged exercise. Fertil Steril 73:864-866, 2000) showed that hCG increases testosterone production because it binds to receptors on Leydig cells and these cells are responsible for the synthesis and secretion of testosterone.

...yea, what he said.........

 

[byu123]

Not to get into an in depth discussion, but I am a believer (not Mormon) and we are not all the same. I believe what I have experienced and through my experience have seen truths and falsehoods about what I have been told by others. I fully believe in a personal relationship with God; personal being the operative word.

I would suggest that for everything in the universe to have been born of something else except for the universe itself is not a logical position, but that is personal belief. I was an atheist for many years and then the idea that the universe originated out of nothing, means nothing, and proceeds nowhere became a logical situation with which I no longer had faith.

Now, we'd probably better just stop there as if you think my opinions on cycling are strong and definitive, you should hear what I think about religion. (and no, you don't already know)

Also, please do not read any sarcasm or antagonism in the above words as they are not intended as such. I just try to express myself clearly because beating around the bush just takes too much time.

Thoughtforfood . . . you are in very good company . . . .

"In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God's existence. " Sir Issac Newton.

"Sir Isaac Newton (January 4, 1643 – March 31, 1727 or in Old Style: December 25, 1642 – March 20, 1727) was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, alchemist, inventor and natural philosopher. He is often regarded as the most influential scientist in history and is best known for discovering the Laws of Gravity." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton

 

[Parrot23]

"Five time Tour de France winner Miguel Indurain is reported to have had a VO2 max of 88.0 at his peak [1], while cross-country skier Bjørn Dæhlie measured at an astounding 96 ml/kg/min.[5] To put this into perspective, thoroughbred horses have a VO2 max of around 180 ml/kg/min. Siberian dogs running in the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race sled race have VO2 values as high as 240 ml/kg/min.[6]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VO2_max#VO2_max_Levels

Does this mean that if I got my sister's Alaskan Husky to train for the Tour he would absolutely kick Contador's a$$ on Ventoux????? Just a "noob" that wants to know . . . .

Good stuff. Hilarious cartoon! . Thanks for that. Some great laughs on these threads: there are a couple of wags around here.

Sled dogs are absolutely incredible. NB: Alpe d'Huez knows all about Daehlie, too.

To your question, you gotta believe it. Some animals have astounding VO2 maxes (think I had a post long time ago citing these figures). People don't realize that their pet poodle or [substitute whatever] sitting at their feet has far, far greater aerobic capacity than ANY procyclist will ever have--and that's without any training [one poodle, say= 1 1/2 Indurain's]. Dogs are born to run. Think just about all dogs are in the 100s. Even the lowliest draft horse or plowing horse can run better than Lance can cycle. So when anyone sees the winner of this year's Tour, look down at your lazy, snoozing, good for nothing pooch and think, "He could kick that guy's *** (relatively speaking), no problem".

The lesson for me: you can't put it what God/nature/genes left out. There are some iron limits. But, LOL, that's where the doping/blood manipulation comes in. The "fun and games" part, the shenanigans, where the streetsmart cons game the legal system, find the loopholes, etc.

And it's why the percentage of the VO2 max (the latter basically is an iron limit set from birth or establishd in teens) or threshold power, however defined, is the key training variable. Very painful one. But here is where all the blood chemistry business becomes so critical and where people like Ferrari, Conconi, Fuentes, and Cechinni are geniuses (where key differences can be made). It seems to affect not only power output of muscles, but the lactate production/clearing mechanism with the oxygen you do have (like high octane fuel, jet fuel, what have you). More bang for the buck/red blood cell carrying the oxygen burning the carbohydrate and fat, etc.

One other thing favouring a dog uphill (or a human runner on a really steep hill): cycling is very biomechanically inefficient going uphill. The energy transfer of the wheel is entirely straight back at the road's incline. A runner or dog (flexible legs/levers) can produce directed leverage, and push up AND backward simultaneously. Far more efficient on a hill.

So, yes, pooch will kick Bertie's (Contador's nickname) *** going uphill as long as it's steep enough.

P.S. Incidentally, Indurain has always been totally silent about EPO. Everyone knows why: EPO on his engine during the peak EPO era=five Tours. It's more complex now; more cat and mouse, or pooch and cat, LOL.

 

[Amsterhammer]

This has been covered in other threads, but here is what you are looking for:

Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) is a marker for testicular cancer and is also a performance enhancer (indirectly)......

...yea, what he said.........

Uh, thanks for that...I think. I shall ask my medical adviser for a translation tomorrow.

 

[Anonymous]

This is way off topic, but, relevant to these particular comments. Someone going by the name byu123 is almost certainly a "God fearing" Mormon. No offense to Mormons, this applies to all believers (be they believers in "God" or in the Flying Spaghetti Monster): they are accustomed to believing what they want to believe, or what they've been told is true, despite the evidence (or lack thereof).

That makes it very difficult to use evidence-based reasoning to persuade believers of anything. This result is arguably the greatest harm in raising children to believe in the actual existence of mythical conceptions such as God.

I also believe in evolution and that if intelligent design is taught in schools then Flying Spaghetti Monsterism should be taught also. I find the separation of church and state to be of paramount importance for many reasons, not the least of which is that once the government adopts a religion, they then have the right to determine what is and is not acceptable in that religion. Why many American religious leaders and followers cannot go back and read the reasoning for the 1st Amendment is beyond me?

OK, enough of that.

 

[Anonymous]

Thoughtforfood . . . you are in very good company . . . .

"In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God's existence. " Sir Issac Newton.

"Sir Isaac Newton (January 4, 1643 – March 31, 1727 or in Old Style: December 25, 1642 – March 20, 1727) was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, alchemist, inventor and natural philosopher. He is often regarded as the most influential scientist in history and is best known for discovering the Laws of Gravity." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton

Yea, unfortunately we also have Mark Sanford on our team........

Dang, cycling, God, and politics in one day.......

But thank you also, sincerely.

 

[Parrot23]

Yea, unfortunately we also have Mark Sanford on our team........

Don't worry.

BYU and I--and I bet some others--are "pulling" right now, albeit in slightly different directions, but still forward.

So some screwups/guys who've gone over their thresholds mid-race can recover and get their "energy" debts forgiven, like anyone else....

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I would suggest that for everything in the universe to have been born of something else except for the universe itself is not a logical position, but that is personal belief. I was an atheist for many years and then the idea that the universe originated out of nothing, means nothing, and proceeds nowhere became a logical situation with which I no longer had faith.

Are you saying that the universe originating out of nothing, or the universe always existing in one form or another, or "everything in the universe to have been born of something else except for the universe itself", is all too incredible to accept?

If so, that's a fairly common perspective, and one that makes no sense to me. Perhaps you can explain this.

If the universe originating out of nothing, or the universe always existing in one form or another, is too incredible to accept, then why is not "the creator" originating out of nothing, or "the creator" always existing in one form or another, also not too incredible to accept?

If "everything in the universe to have been born of something else except for the universe itself" is illogical to you, then why is "everything in the universe to have been born of something else except for 'the creator'" not also illogical to you?

Anyway, there is a lot of evidence for the big bang, and no evidence, by necessity, of what existed prior to the big bang. Perhaps everything in the universe implodes and explodes periodically. I don't know. But that seems much more plausible to me than there being some great all-powerful all-knowing intelligence (even knowing who will win the Tour!) - whose origin would be much more mysterious than that of the universe itself - hiding behind the curtain and pulling the strings, so to speak. When you step back and think about, that concept is completely fantastic.

Also, there is really no such thing as "the universe", so it's a bit misleading to say "everything ... but the universe itself", because that implies "the universe" is a thing. "The universe" is simply a shorthand way of saying "everything that exists". The concept of "the universe" itself, as if it's a separate thing, being born, or created, or whatever, is therefore nonsensical.

 

[patswana]

I would recommend would be Matt Rendell's 'The Death of Marco Pantani' not only will it help you understand the doping environment within cycling it may also help you understand why most of the posters here are so passionate about trying to get doping out of cycling.

Another good one is Joe Parkin's "A Dog in a Hat".

 

[Bala Verde]

... Dogs are born to run. Think just about all dogs are in the 100s. Even the lowliest draft horse or plowing horse can run better than Lance can cycle.

Perhaps men are not created to race bikes then...

 

[byu123]

Not to get into an in depth discussion, but I am a believer (not Mormon) and we are not all the same. I believe what I have experienced and through my experience have seen truths and falsehoods about what I have been told by others. I fully believe in a personal relationship with God; personal being the operative word.

I would suggest that for everything in the universe to have been born of something else except for the universe itself is not a logical position, but that is personal belief. I was an atheist for many years and then the idea that the universe originated out of nothing, means nothing, and proceeds nowhere became a logical situation with which I no longer had faith.

Now, we'd probably better just stop there as if you think my opinions on cycling are strong and definitive, you should hear what I think about religion. (and no, you don't already know)

Also, please do not read any sarcasm or antagonism in the above words as they are not intended as such. I just try to express myself clearly because beating around the bush just takes too much time.

Yea, unfortunately we also have Mark Sanford on our team........

Dang, cycling, God, and politics in one day.......

But thank you also, sincerely.

Yea . . . one thing I try to never lose sight of on blogs like this is that most people are here because either now or in the past they were competitive athletes who have put in hours, week, months, years of training and pain to succeed at sports . . . cycling or otherwise. Ergo . . . they are competitive in nature and can get into heated debate on topics in which they disagree. Above all, especially in today's society of obese slugs, I have a lot of respect for accomplished athletes of any stripe.

Disagreements on doping, Armstrong, Contador, PEDs, God, religion, etc. etc. etc. aside . . . if . . . "the fecal matter were about to hit the oscillating device" and I was asked to pick who I wanted to share a foxhole with just before the ravaging hoards descended upon me . . . first and foremost I would look for a person who is a dedicated and accomplished athlete . . . because they know how to fight, how not to back down in the face of a meanacing enemy, how to manage fear to their advantage, and deep down have a desire to kick the opponents a$$ . . . .

"Americans play to win at all times. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost nor will ever lose a war." -- George S. Patton

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH8OwLWzHMI

 

[Anonymous]

Are you saying that the universe originating out of nothing, or the universe always existing in one form or another, or "everything in the universe to have been born of something else except for the universe itself", is all too incredible to accept?

If so, that's a fairly common perspective, and one that makes no sense to me. Perhaps you can explain this.

If the universe originating out of nothing, or the universe always existing in one form or another, is too incredible to accept, then why is not "the creator" originating out of nothing, or "the creator" always existing in one form or another, also not too incredible to accept?

If "everything in the universe to have been born of something else except for the universe itself" is illogical to you, then why is "everything in the universe to have been born of something else except for 'the creator'" not also illogical to you?

Because I believe there is more in "existence" than the physical world and that the infinite is a concept much to large for any limited human mind. You believe there is an answer to everything that is capable of being understood by a being limited in so many ways, I believe that some things require faith, and I have experienced fruits of that faith. I cannot transfer them to anyone as I was the only one to experience my individual life, but you certainly will not dazzle me with any mystery of the universe and make me believe less in God.

Anyway, there is a lot of evidence for the big bang, and no evidence, by necessity, of what existed prior to the big bang. Perhaps everything in the universe implodes and explodes periodically. I don't know. But that seems much more plausible to me than there being some great all-powerful all-knowing intelligence (even knowing who will win the Tour!) - whose origin would be much more mysterious than that of the universe itself - hiding behind the curtain and pulling the strings, so to speak. When you step back and think about, that concept is completely fantastic.

I believe we are given complete and total free will as was the "universe." I believe we can cede our will, and ask for guidance and that we will indeed receive such guidance so long as we are open and willing. However I also believe there is no requirement to do so.

Also, there is really no such thing as "the universe", so it's a bit misleading to say "everything ... but the universe itself", because that implies "the universe" is a thing. "The universe" is simply a shorthand way of saying "everything that exists". The concept of "the universe" itself, as if it's a separate thing, being born, or created, or whatever, is therefore nonsensical.

Numbers are nonsensical in the realm of the infinite, but I bet you believe in them? Tell me, why do you believe in a concept that a singular exists when clearly anything with mass can only be made of something with mass and therefore is inherently divisible? I don't believe in numbers because they cannot be proven to exist in a theoretical realm.

 

[Bala Verde]

I hope this will, eventually, turn to Heidegger! Being and nothing in a nutshell

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I believe what I have experienced and through my experience have seen truths and falsehoods about what I have been told by others. I fully believe in a personal relationship with God; personal being the operative word.

You know, it's conceivable that a pro cyclist might believe so deeply in the power of, say, a rabbit's foot, that having that rabbit's foot in his jersey pocket could have a real and even measurable effect on his performance.

Would such a personal experience be evidence of the true power of the rabbit's foot?

"Personal experience" and anecdotal stories, not matter how real it seems, is not evidence.

 

[DavidT]

I would read it again because that is presented as one unlikely possibility, but the greatest probability is that he was masking. That is why the book points out that Lance soon let that issue drop completely after initially asking a question about it. The book clearly states that masking would have made the results look normal, and that it is suspicious that Armstrong just let it go quickly, and that it is unlikely that at that time the UCI would have suppressed the results knowing what all scientists did about the issue. The lab guy doesn't remember a positive, but does know that the test for it was almost certainly performed on the samples that Armstrong gave that year multiple times and nothing showed. I would read it again.

OK, I read it again. top of page 77 hardback. "Implicit in De Ceaurriz's observation is the possibility that Armstrong's elevated beta-hCG level was picked up in the test but perhaps not reported by the laboratory, or if it was reported, maybe it was bever acted upon by the UCI"
Nowhere can I find Walsh suggest that a masking agent was used, nor does he discuss the existence of a masking agent for beta-hGC. There is no reason given for Armstrong dropping the issue. I interpreted that as Armstrong supporting the Omerta - and that the UCI was (and still is) complicit in the Omerta. And that is why he didn't take legal action - he takes legal action to prop up the Omerta, not to dismantle it.