-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Dr. Ashenden interview: "no doubt LA took EPO in '99 Tour"
- Thread starter Captain Serious
- Start date
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.
And yet Lance continues to race without being total body hemoglobin tested! What a joke!?
I want to see his power files in training right now. Whats your FTP at right now Lance? Whats your REAL FTP at!?
I want to see his power files in training right now. Whats your FTP at right now Lance? Whats your REAL FTP at!?
That interview is devastating. It absolutely destroys the fanboys' excuses as to why the '99 EPO positives should not count.
I also like how Ashenden dismantles that garbage Coyle study and points out that the unremarkable (for a pro) VO2Max from those studies could not have been raised to the 90+ values required to produce Armstrong's Tour performances.
I also like how Ashenden dismantles that garbage Coyle study and points out that the unremarkable (for a pro) VO2Max from those studies could not have been raised to the 90+ values required to produce Armstrong's Tour performances.
blimey thats long...
the one thing that surprises me the most is that according to his figures of the '99 tests, only 8% are positive or showing high epo levels...
8% of the pelaton doping? and with the assumption that the samples only came from stage winners etc, that makes it more like 2% of the pelaton doping in '99...
anyone who beleives it was as low as that needs there head testing.. :?
conclusions from all of that.. lance doped in 99, so probably did 2nd, 3rd, 4th, in fact im pretty sure that more like 99% of the pelaton was on epo at the time.. where does it take us now.. ive no idea...
one thing would be interesting.. much of peoples opinions on doping seem to be admission based.. a rider who admits doing wrong, is much more quickly forgiven than a rider who continues to deny it.. If lance stood up tommoro and said "look in 99 i took epo, so did everyone in the pelaton and if you want names have them, i was wrong, its ten years ago".. would fans accept that admission and get on with it.. or would he be treated int he same way as landis, hamilton et al.
the one thing that surprises me the most is that according to his figures of the '99 tests, only 8% are positive or showing high epo levels...
8% of the pelaton doping? and with the assumption that the samples only came from stage winners etc, that makes it more like 2% of the pelaton doping in '99...
anyone who beleives it was as low as that needs there head testing.. :?
conclusions from all of that.. lance doped in 99, so probably did 2nd, 3rd, 4th, in fact im pretty sure that more like 99% of the pelaton was on epo at the time.. where does it take us now.. ive no idea...
one thing would be interesting.. much of peoples opinions on doping seem to be admission based.. a rider who admits doing wrong, is much more quickly forgiven than a rider who continues to deny it.. If lance stood up tommoro and said "look in 99 i took epo, so did everyone in the pelaton and if you want names have them, i was wrong, its ten years ago".. would fans accept that admission and get on with it.. or would he be treated int he same way as landis, hamilton et al.
actually, reminding myself of the finishing order for the 99 tour i would say that 15 of the top 15 where on epo.. along with the green jersey winner, the polka dot winner and the entire team that won the team comp..
mystified as to how they only found 8% where on epo... something wrong with the testing there.. lol...
how does it make me feel about lance.. so in 99 he was on epo, so was everyone, from an athletic point of view he was still the best rider.. now i just need to see the evidence for 2000, 2001, 2002 etc etc..
i dont think it changes anything for me.. i dont think theres a season in cycling from the eighties through to the late nineties where it was fairly obvious dope was rife throughout the whole pelaton.. again i guess it comes back to the logic of respect those that admit it, vilify those that wont..
mystified as to how they only found 8% where on epo... something wrong with the testing there.. lol...
how does it make me feel about lance.. so in 99 he was on epo, so was everyone, from an athletic point of view he was still the best rider.. now i just need to see the evidence for 2000, 2001, 2002 etc etc..
i dont think it changes anything for me.. i dont think theres a season in cycling from the eighties through to the late nineties where it was fairly obvious dope was rife throughout the whole pelaton.. again i guess it comes back to the logic of respect those that admit it, vilify those that wont..
Coyle published ?Improved muscular efficiency displayed as Tour de France champion matures? in the Journal of Applied Physiology in 2005 (98:2191-2196). What a load of unscientific poppycock. Ashenden is much cleverer than me and is correct to question Coyle?s findings. But there is more basic information in Coyle?s paper which is also fundamentally flawed. In Table 2, Coyle compares Armstrong?s vitals and performance preseason in November 1992, January 1993, and November 1999. For these three time periods, his body weight was 78.9 kg, 76.5 kg and 79.7 kg (note, no 10 kg loss in body weight after cancer treatment) and his lean body weight was 70.5 kg, 69.8 kg and 71.6 kg. Aerobically, his maximal oxygen uptake was 5.56 l/min, 5/82 l/min and 5.7 l/min, and maximal blood lactate was 7.5 mM, 6.3 mM and not measured in 1999. Finally, his power output at oxygen uptake of 5.0 L/min was 374W, 382W and 404W. Looking at these figures you would say, ?Where is the big difference before and after cancer?? Well, there is none. So how did Coyle achieve his remarkable claim that Armstrong?s power-to-body weight ratio improved 18% from 1992 to 1999? He fudged the figures ? instead of using his actual body weight in 1999 (79.7 kg) he used his estimated racing body weight of 72 kg. He compared apples to oranges by comparing actual 1992 preseason results to estimated 1999 racing results. If Coyle had actually compared apples to apples and used actual and measured data presented in Table 2, then Armstrong?s actual power-to-weight ratios would be 4.74, 4.99 and 5.07 for each of those time periods, representing a paltry 7.0% and 1.6% improvement compared to his 1992 and 1993 preseason results. So, not only are Coyle?s findings wrong, but everything that is purported to explain Armstrong?s post-cancer treatment improvement is also wrong ? his body weight has not changed, his percentage fat has not changed, his lactate threshold has not changed, and his power output (raw or to-weight ratio) has hardly changed. Furthermore, as Ashenden, BroDeal and others have already pointed out (dare I say it, LeMond among them), Armstrong?s power output, power-to-weight ratio, lactate threshold and VO2 max are not different to most pro cyclists and definitely not in the realm of most Grand Tour winners. Speculate as you may about whether or not he doped, but the facts do not lie.
As a side issue, Armstrong has often stated he is the most tested athlete (at least cyclist) on earth as a defense against his doping. However, doping and getting caught are two very different things. Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) stimulates testosterone and epitestosterone production (and hence is a banned substance), but is also a marker for testicular cancer. Armstrong boasted his hCG levels at the time of his diagnosis were > 100, more than 20 times the normal reference range. Yet, for the most tested cyclist on earth, the UCI never reported his cancer-induced elevated hCG levels (despite frequent tests being performed around this time). The UCI failed not only on a drug testing level, but also failed to adequately protect Armstrong and his health. Since then, at least two athletes have had their testicular cancer diagnosed early through UCI tests reporting elevated hCG levels and, because of earlier detection, they were treated successfully.
As a side issue, Armstrong has often stated he is the most tested athlete (at least cyclist) on earth as a defense against his doping. However, doping and getting caught are two very different things. Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) stimulates testosterone and epitestosterone production (and hence is a banned substance), but is also a marker for testicular cancer. Armstrong boasted his hCG levels at the time of his diagnosis were > 100, more than 20 times the normal reference range. Yet, for the most tested cyclist on earth, the UCI never reported his cancer-induced elevated hCG levels (despite frequent tests being performed around this time). The UCI failed not only on a drug testing level, but also failed to adequately protect Armstrong and his health. Since then, at least two athletes have had their testicular cancer diagnosed early through UCI tests reporting elevated hCG levels and, because of earlier detection, they were treated successfully.
dimspace said:
There may be a reasonable explanation for that. The '98 retests found 40 positives. The difference between the two years is that in the wake of the Festina affair teams might be searched by police. It is probably reasonable to conclude that many teams no longer felt safe carrying their stash with them throughout the Tour. The simplest strategy might have been to inject EPO right before the race and not inject during the next three weeks. All the prologue samples were positive, so maybe that is what many riders did.
dimspace said:
Since he has expended a huge amount of effort to deny doping, acted as an enforcer of omerta to punish Simeoni, pushed Bassons out of the sport, and sued people, he is not just in Hamilton territory. He is way way beyond that. If his fans cannot, as Ullrich says, put one and one together with all the available evidence then you would think they would be gobsmacked by facing reality with no way to deny it.
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...
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...
Captain Serious said:
Hmmm...best part of all this is that he reviewed the documentation and spoke to the testers and assumes they are 100% correct. IMO, Landis' trial proved that the testers aren't that good and well trained.
heck, they couldn't get the basic t/e test correct, so incorrect, in fact that the test was thrown out in the first Landis arbitration. And the EPO test is more difficult to run...
What's Asheden getting out of this publicity? Anyone thought of that?
The sooner it is accepted the late 90's was the late 90's and move on the better. What does it prove to constantly drag up information that we all know happened anyway. Move on and appreciate todays quality racing.
Lance should be interviewed and only asked questions pertaining to the research paper and concentrate on the listed body weight. If agree's to the weights listed it goes against his statements of having lost the weight, if he disagree's he throws Coyle under the bus, possibly concluding Coyle's research career. Will then Coyle throw Lance under the bus?
Well somebody get those questions to him! STAT!
Well somebody get those questions to him! STAT!
I'm going to throw this hat in the ring again... with all things being equal, meaning everyone doped in '99 including Lance, than he still kicked all their @sses! How many riders back then did recon training prior to the Tour the way Lance did? I think he was just better prepared mentally and physically than anyone else.
And even if he and everyone else used EPO then doesn't that make it an even playing field since they all used the same thing? Then one would conclude that it was his training and preparation that made him a better rider. That and the tactics and team assembled around him.
So for me, even if he was found to use EPO I really wouldn't care. But if he gets crucified then everyone else in the '90's, early 00's better be raked over the coals the same way. But we all know that won't happen.
Just like in baseball in the '90's that era of cycling will forever have an asterisk on it.
And even if he and everyone else used EPO then doesn't that make it an even playing field since they all used the same thing? Then one would conclude that it was his training and preparation that made him a better rider. That and the tactics and team assembled around him.
So for me, even if he was found to use EPO I really wouldn't care. But if he gets crucified then everyone else in the '90's, early 00's better be raked over the coals the same way. But we all know that won't happen.
Just like in baseball in the '90's that era of cycling will forever have an asterisk on it.
Argon Man said:
agreed... im a big lance fan, and it wouldnt surprise me in the slighest if he used epo in 99.. it also wouldnt surprise me if the entire pelaton used epo.. i dont agree with it, but for me it doesnt change things... everything was on a level playing field.. everyone used it, alls fair...
however, doesnt mean i agree with it.. id rather have a fair clean even playing feild, than one where everyone cheats... thats why the likes of ricco etc draw much more critisism from me.. in 99 everyone was cheating, now the majority are trying to race clean, and a few idiots are screwing it up...
if i worried about who had doped in the past i would have to erase cycling history from my brain, roche, kelly, millar, delgado, zabel, cippo, fignon, merckx, the whole bleedin lot of em.. .
Not so. Some react better, some took bigger doses, some took it more often. It's not equalising, it's the opposite where those who break the rules the most and who risk their health the most can see the greatest changes in their performance.dimspace said:
dimspace said:
First of all, Fingon along with LeMond missed the epo 'boat' in 1991 and both got it handed to them. After that though, it was LeMond's own damn fault he wouldnt take epo. Fingon quit after 92 but won a stage in the 2nd epo Tour.
One thing you fail to consider is this: Not everybody sees the same gains on epo its about hematocrit raising AND >>>Before epo it was still possible for a freaky talented clean rider to win against dopers who only had HGH from dead bodies, testosterone, stimulants and ephedrine.
Upon the advent of red blood cells jacking in the first EPO Tour de France of 1991 everybody on epo saw huge gains but some not nearly so huge as others.
Some only went to a 54% hematocrit because they were afraid of dying of a heart attack like some had, and saw 12% more sustainable power. But yet others jacked all the way to >>>>> 60% which can give 20% more power EASILY! This was dangerous but it effectively destroyed those who only juiced half way. Riis had a 60% in 1996 and he DESTROYED the Festina riders who only went to 54 according to Voet; and Riis even dropped expert french climber Richard Virenque--on a mountain to boot. And Riis had not been a climbing protegy AT ALL before that.
And... Not all wanted to use HGH which has been proven to give up to a 10% boost in good responders (but some guys do not benefit nearly as much from it.) Did you know that Matt Decanio who rode for an Italian U-23 development team in 1997 said they did not want to use HGH because they were scared of it causing skeletal changes and widening your brow and legthening the chin with excessive abuse? And he and the whole team were passed HGH and expected to use it by the team director. And many did not and so they lost out on some doping gains and won less races than the team had the year before when they used HGH?
Did you know that there are and WERE many MANY experimental chemo boosters, 02 carriers, HBOCs and other oxygen carrying drugs that were not available to MANY teams and riders because they simply did not know about them. BUT a rider who has the money to pay a doping doctor like Ferrari $50,000 a year will get these VERY precious products like HemAssist, hemopure, oxyglobin that were the difference between winning and finishing mid=pack! And these 02 carriers were used in the late 90s and early 2000s....
Did you know that not many top european pros even got to meet Michele Ferrari no matter how much money they had? DId you know that Lance armstrong's Postal team was caught with Actovegin (a deproteinised hemodialysate manufactured from calf blood) during the 2000 Tour de France and that it had been shown to increase oxygen carrying capacity in some people by up to 10%? Do you know how expensive and experimental that stuff was 9 years ago?
AND Do you realize there are MANY very very talented young men racing cat 1 and low level professional teams that did not dope and so never ever saw the top of the sport even though they could have perhaps been Grand Tour contenders if they could have seen a 25-35% sustainable power based gain on a Dr. Ferrari drug program of autologous blood doping and 02 carriers? And did you know there were many pros that did nto dope during the 1990s and do not now?
Did you know that Lance helped pay for the EPO test in 2000 and that all the top teams were forced to autologous blood dope to not test positive and that not all the teams had the knowledge or the knowhow to do this and so many lost out on 20% sustainable power gains?
Do you remember operation Puerto? This PROOVED >>>>>> That autologous blood transfusions are the number one biggy when it comes to ProTour doping and not everyone can afford to do this for super important stages and so many ride rode at a HUGE power disadvantage.
Did you know that Dr. Fuentes would get phone calls and text messages when one of his riders would win a stage or move up in the overal "you have a first and a 2nd Mr. Fuentes."
Yes, of course.dimspace said:
Although this is about Epo, that was not the only product that was used.
USPS' hotel rooms did have empty vials of insulin and actovegin.
God only knows what else they were using.
And with Armstrong being personally sponsored by BristolMyersSquibb, he's have had access to plenty of good stuff.
mwbyrd said:
Exactly, EXACTLY! There are humans and then there are the humans that have something most other humans do not possess (but want!). An elite physiology and a mind that is capable of pushing that physiology to it's limits THEN beyond.
I probably won't win friends with this point but when one does not possess that "truly unique ability" that "special quality" then how can one fathom living in such a world.
I'm not a fan of Lance outside of cycling. I think he's got some serious social issues that might indicate a troubled soul, an ego of gargantuant proportions and a chip on his shoulder from a broken family life related to abandonment. Who knows, maybe that's the fuel that burns inside of him and gives him the reason to "beat others." But aside from what runs this guy's mental program outside of cycling, as a cyclist, an athlete, someone who knows his body's capabilities, and what lies BEYOND it's limits, he has Mastered that world. Unfortunately, I think many humans cannot rationally cope with the depth of what living in that realm is like.
Plainly stated, bottom line, 'Fortitude' is the magic ingredient, not drugs, that moves 'the man' on a bicycle, past us mortals.
Bottom line for us? Some of us don't like to get dropped. I know I don't. And we all know that there are competitive cyclists out there who "possess" more excuses than anybody for not being on the podium. So, we point the finger at those who are good, "too" good, as we see it, and the external excuse machine goes into hyper drive.
Competition is for the Competent
The whole story that Armstrong is more driven, trains harder, trains smarter, takes more notice of his equipment, pedals a bit faster etc. is great for selling books and promoting companies like Nike or Oakley.Robert Merivel said:
But go and spend some time with elite athletes in general. The vast majority are type A personalities. The majority are incredibly driven. Pretty much all hate to lose. Most obsess over their equipment, their diets, their training, their progress.
Armstrong's PR people imply that other cyclists sit around drinking beer and eating pies, rarely train, never ride the important stages before the race, don't really want to win, don't really care about their equipment, don't look into the merits of different training techniques etc. I find this highly insulting to those other cyclists and think you'd have to be either very naive or gullible to believe it.
patswana said:
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.TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Started by topcat
- Replies: 983
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
Volta Ciclista a Catalunya 2024 (March 18-24)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 2K
-
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram