Dr. Ashenden interview: "no doubt LA took EPO in '99 Tour"

[cody251]

Well, except for Jan Ullrich......

dammit, I was late and didn't read all the way!

 

[Mellow Velo]

Ulrich DID sit around, etc and it's the reason he had to dope like mother to hang. It's a fact that early in LA's TdF winnings, he did the most recon and pre-race training on the the roads he was racing in July. Now, yes every GT contender does it, and they obsess because they know it helps and it works. Back then, not many did it the way LA did it.

I wonder if you could supply some supporting evidence, other than that of the LA propaganda machine, for this load of blarney.

 

[Anonymous]

I wonder if you could supply some supporting evidence, other than that of the LA propaganda machine, for this load of blarney.

Can you supply supporting evidence to oppose it?

 

[Mellow Velo]

Can you supply supporting evidence to oppose it?

Should I have to? I'm not the one making the claim for it to be taken as fact.
We are constantly told not to make negative assertions upon doping without evidence.
However, if I were making any claim, I'd have evidence.
Case in point, check out my reply to you on the LA thread.

 

[Power13]

I wonder if you could supply some supporting evidence, other than that of the LA propaganda machine, for this load of blarney.

Besides the pictures of Jan being big as a house, getting dropped on even the smallest incline as late as April and May, the fact that he had to rush himself into shape every year, his own admissions that he never recon'd the stages and that he did not need to go into a wind tunnel? Besides that evidence?

 

[mr. tibbs]

Should I have to? I'm not the one making the claim for it to be taken as fact.
We are constantly told not to make negative assertions upon doping without evidence.
However, if I were making any claim, I'd have evidence.
Case in point, check out my reply to you on the LA thread.

C'mon, I think that whole "Ullrich drinking beer and eating pie" thing is just a light-hearted joke. It's certainly the first thing that popped into my mind, and I would have posted it, too, if it hadn't been done already. (Full disclaimer: I'm a HUGE Jan fan, and even own two T-Mobile jerseys that I used to wear while riding.)

My friends and I always crack jokes about Ullrich's off season lifestyle, but it's just in fun. We also all greatly respect him and his abilities.

And now this :

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Back to the article at hand. Ashenden should be applauded by everyone in sports for his thorough analysis, and in my eyes this now makes it irrefutable that LA doped, certainly in 1999. The rest of the stories just pile on top of that.

Interesting reading some comments by people who sound like they didn't read the article, but are commenting anyway.

Armstrong has often stated he is the most tested athlete (at least cyclist) on earth as a defense against his doping.

Another talking point from the Lance PR machine. Though no one has the exact numbers, someone did their own analysis regarding how likely one would be to be tested, and came to the conclusion that Mario Cippolini Laurent Jalabert and Erik Zabel all had to have been tested more than Lance. Several other riders were listed (I think Heras was one of them) to be tested just as much.

 

[Angliru]

Ulrich DID sit around, etc and it's the reason he had to dope like mother to hang. It's a fact that early in LA's TdF winnings, he did the most recon and pre-race training on the the roads he was racing in July. Now, yes every GT contender does it, and they obsess because they know it helps and it works. Back then, not many did it the way LA did it.

...and this is "a fact" based on what evidence? Who is to say what other riders recon efforts weren't comparable or did not exceed Armstrongs? Is there some log of time spent at recon that only you know about?

 

[Angliru]

Can you supply supporting evidence to oppose it?

Wow. So the fact that some journalist says Armstrong invented recon of Tour mountain routes that makes it fact?

 

[Angliru]

Besides the pictures of Jan being big as a house, getting dropped on even the smallest incline as late as April and May, the fact that he had to rush himself into shape every year, his own admissions that he never recon'd the stages and that he did not need to go into a wind tunnel? Besides that evidence?

Weren't there 20+ other teams with 180+ riders on those teams scheduled to complete in the Tour? What are the odds that none of those other 180+ riders didn't recon the routes?

 

[laura.weislo]

The most interesting bit I could find in the article is that the total body hemoglobin is ineffective in detecting autologous transfusions. This means the bio passport will be largely ineffective in detecting this type of cheating.

"The changes aren't usually substantial enough that in itself we will be able to impose a doping violation just on changes in the blood. We would probably need to supplement that with other sorts of evidence."

I find that to be disheartening. We're down to what has been the case for years: there is evidence of doping but not enough to take action because of the way antidoping agencies must draw a line between positive and not positive (ie. the EPO test).

 

[cody251]

I wonder if you could supply some supporting evidence, other than that of the LA propaganda machine, for this load of blarney.

Should I have to? Just as equally you dismiss what I say as BS because I didn't site a reference. Where is yours? Typical anti-LA propaganda. You read an article, you take it as gospel because it falls in line with your opinion. How is what I say or think any less accurate? In your mind its all "blarney" because it doesn't match your opinion. Off you go...

 

[cody251]

Wow. So the fact that some journalist says Armstrong invented recon of Tour mountain routes that makes it fact?

I'm pretty sure no one said he "invented recon". So the fact that someone writes an article and says LA doped, makes it fact? You and others on that side of the debate dismiss one article for another because of your opinion. Think what you want, it's all our right to do that, but don't make one side seem irrational or naive when you can be called the same for your opinion.

 

[cody251]

Weren't there 20+ other teams with 180+ riders on those teams scheduled to complete in the Tour? What are the odds that none of those other 180+ riders didn't recon the routes?

Again, there you go making assumptions. He NEVER said no one else did recon, he's just saying, some of the other big name riders admitted they didn't.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Should I have to?

Only if you want to be taken seriously.
OK, how about this latest piece of "adjustment" from the man himself?
Check out his haematocrit level for Feb 2th, posted on his Livestrong site on Feb 12th.

http://www.livestrong.com/lance-arm...c8cPost:4d1f78a2-14b5-4790-9dec-b18b3721f0c9/

See what it says? 45.8%

Now check it again, as posted on the same site, two days ago......
http://www.livestrong.com/lance-arm...c8cPost:96932dcf-36bb-4183-a904-9816f37a8697/

Et Viola! 43.1%

If you want an example of real incompetence, look no further.
I'd say that was an extremely good reason to take what he feeds the public, with a hefty pinch of salt.

Hope that's enough evidence from a trustworthy source for you.
Spin that, if you can.

 

[Anonymous]

Should I have to? I'm not the one making the claim for it to be taken as fact.
We are constantly told not to make negative assertions upon doping without evidence.
However, if I were making any claim, I'd have evidence.
Case in point, check out my reply to you on the LA thread.

Mellow, I wasn't being facetious. It was an honest question. You asked one way so I'd like to see it the other way to get a more rounded picture. Occasionally I'd like to hear both sides before making a judgement or changing my own opinion.

So again, not being facetious, do you have supporting evidence to oppose it?

Thanks!

ps - sorry, late to the party... I hadn't read everything posted since my last post.

 

[TrapperJohn]

Just to play devil's advocate here....

Ashenden is not completely altruistic. He was on the team that developed the EPO test, which means he gets royalties from it's use. Being the person whose method was used to nail LA would boost the volume and the price of the consulting work he's now doing. It's the biotech equivalent of winning the TDF, very prestigious (which gets a lot of grants and opportunities in the research world) and very profitable.

This doesn't mean he isn't correct, just that his primary motivations are prestige and financial. What he says should be subject to the same adverse scrutiny given to what LA says, or any accused cyclist or DS. Note that he didn't say that the 99 sample retest was considered a clinical trial of an experimental method, not an absolute based on a fully certified lab process. It may have been right, the method may have survived clinical trials without alteration (did it?) but it merits an asterisk after any conclusions drawn, and any scientist pursuing the truth should have noted that asterisk.

LA probably did dope in 99. So did a lot of other riders, EPO couldn't be detected at that time. If one applies the same adverse scrutiny to the 99 retest that they do to what LA claims, they could easily conclude that the test wasn't very accurate, as it uncovered so few positives, when everyone was rumored to be doping. If, as has been said here, the few positives were because most cyclists were scared out of doping in 99, average speed of all riders should have been quite a bit lower, the few dopers should have put a lot of time on the 'clean' peloton. None of which happened - average speed was a bit higher than 98, margin of victory was close, number of finishers was pretty much par, and there was no small group of dopers that left the rest of the peloton behind.

I am in no way trying to defend LA, just applying the same harsh eye to his detractors that is applied to him.

If you want to grind an axe against a jerk, the 99 Tour sample test sounds good. If you want the truth, you'll have to dig quite a bit deeper.

 

[cody251]

Just to play devil's advocate here....

Ashenden is not completely altruistic. He was on the team that developed the EPO test, which means he gets royalties from it's use. Being the person whose method was used to nail LA would boost the volume and the price of the consulting work he's now doing. It's the biotech equivalent of winning the TDF, very prestigious (which gets a lot of grants and opportunities in the research world) and very profitable.

This doesn't mean he isn't correct, just that his primary motivations are prestige and financial.

This is similar to the thought I asked about Catlin. Not that I'm discrediting either, but what was the amount $$$ Catlin was asking for to set up a program for LA? I know money was one of the things mentioned by LA's camp (which automatically means nothing to some) but did he get greedy? Like most things related to LA, his involvement means a huge pay day for many. Yet another reason I'd be suprised if he is excluded by the TdF.

 

[cody251]

OK, how about this latest piece of "adjustment" from the man himself?

If you want an example of real incompetence, look no further.

Spin that, if you can.

Too easy, at least with a little common sense, or perhaps in some cases not-so-common sense... So an LS.com staff member made a mistake? Perhaps they are incompetent. Considering the blog posts are two months apart it's pretty apparent she posted his most recent results in place of the 2/4 results. Considering your opinion on the matter I'm guessing that isn't comprehensible to you. Carry on the witch hunt! Remember, they are made of wood so they will float!

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Laura - There actually is a test for autologus blood doping that was developed last year. Pierre Bordry spoke of it here, in this interviewin German. Saying the test was not implemented yet, but prelimnary testing had shown it to be effective.

Before this, for the last five years WADA and other testing labs have already kept track of antigen and reticulocytes numbers to compare new blood cells manufactured by the body compared to total blood volume.

It isn't actually blood doping that I worry about anymore. It's gene doping. Everything from Repoxygen (basically the level above Micera), which is still in pre-clinical testing, but was highly suspected of being used in the Torino Olympics, and in track athletes during 2006. And I'm even more concerned about stem-cell gene doping, which is even more in the rudimentary phase of lab testing, and was suspected of being used in the Beijing Olympics (and perhaps a few other sports today). This is an especially frightening form of doping because not only can it not be detected, there is strong suspicion of serious long-term side effects, such as auto-immune system shut down. This may not be a huge concern on a crippled person who is 80 year old in need of gene therapy, but on a 20 year old healthy athlete, God only knows what the future would hold.

We can hope that manufacturers initiate using markers in their product, the way Roche did with Micera in collaboration with WADA, and Philippe Moullier, director of the Gene Therapy Laboratory at the Universite de Nantes in France has said they will attempt to do, but as the Beijing Olympics showed us, it's going to be difficult to stop on a global level.

 

[lauaxeta]

Yet LA trains for 3 months and goes out and runs around a 2:50 marathon. People train for their lifetimes to run that fast.

No matter what, he's an athletic freak. Screw the numbers, maybe he can actually take the pain longer than most.

He was beating pro triathletes when he was 13 or 14. People forget about that.

How come we don't assume Tyler Phinney is doping. Look at what he's accomplished in two years.

I think we all - ME INCLUDED - spend too much time discussing this...

Agreed!!!!

 

[golancego]

Where can i read about Sandy Casar`s dopingtest results from this week?Is he not tested once a week?No..?Suprise,suprise...

 

[BigBoat]

TrapperJohn: "and there was no small group of dopers that left the rest of the peloton behind."

"If you want to grind an axe against a jerk, the 99 Tour sample test sounds good. "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiCIJ2JewPE

NO EPO test yet, Marco was jacked at 60% though.

How many more watts did you need to press than the 125 pound Pantani on that mountain Lance? 110 more watts?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXPXHK7I1iQ&feature=related

 

[BigBoat]

Where can i read about Sandy Casar`s dopingtest results from this week?Is he not tested once a week?No..?Suprise,suprise...

Was Casar on a Dr. Ferrari drug program? Did he fail 6 samples for epo? Is he on a team that was rumored to blood dope with their own blood?

Was his team caught with actovegin ( a deproteinized heme derivative of young calf blood.)

Is there a former staff member of his team that said quote "As soon as the riders are off their bikes their on IVs with a new experimental drug more powerful than EPO."

Have "comments been disabled" for any of Sandy Casar's fan vids? Does he have any fan club even?

 

[Mr.DNA]

Not surprising if you've been watching cycling for years. Anyone who expects anything different just need to stay around until their illusions get shattered.

Amen! Truer words have never been posted on the internets.