Lance Armstrong's blood values from the Tour de France looks suspicious and indicate

[elapid]

Official Lance Armstrong Doping Thread

Here you go ... discuss to your heart's content.

 

[beroepsrenner]

Why Armstrong?
He may have won the most TDFs but why not focus on Merckx? He won TDFs, classics, World championships and even sixes on the velodrome and is generaly regarded as the greatest cyclist ever. Do you think he didnt dope? If not, why not? Nobody disects his career like they do Armstrongs. What makes you think Hinault, Indurain or Anquetil not dope? I think its just that Armstrong is the man of the moment and the obvious target. Many of his adversaries have been caught and yet they are quickly forgotten. When and if he is tested positive, then discredit him, until then just get on with watching the races and appreciating the supreme athletic contest that it is. No other athletes that I know of have the workload that a professional cyclist has and unless you have experienced it yourself you will never understand.

 

[elapid]

There is a Lance Armstrong thread in the Professional Road Racing section. It has degenerated into a discussion on doping, and not just pertaining to Lance. Two moderators, Susan and Greg, suggested that this discussion be moved to the Clinical section. Hence, this thread is an attempt to discuss all things doping in relation to Lance so the other thread in the Professional Road Racing section is not hijacked.

 

[the truth.]

anyone got details on Sea turtle extract? or should i ask Lance

 

[arminius]

anyone got details on Sea turtle extract? or should i ask Lance

And yes, they have to analyze the contents of Popey´s spinach. May be this is the dope agent and we could seriously attack LA.

To have won a cancery battle and seven TdF makes weaklings jealously.

Sport is not war.

arminius

 

[Escarabajo]

Why Armstrong?
He may have won the most TDFs but why not focus on Merckx? He won TDFs, classics, World championships and even sixes on the velodrome and is generaly regarded as the greatest cyclist ever. Do you think he didnt dope? If not, why not? Nobody disects his career like they do Armstrongs. What makes you think Hinault, Indurain or Anquetil not dope? I think its just that Armstrong is the man of the moment and the obvious target. Many of his adversaries have been caught and yet they are quickly forgotten. When and if he is tested positive, then discredit him, until then just get on with watching the races and appreciating the supreme athletic contest that it is. No other athletes that I know of have the workload that a professional cyclist has and unless you have experienced it yourself you will never understand.

Certainly that is one of the reasons.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Of course it is. Wait a year or two when he's not racing anymore, and he'll drop off the radar.

If he fades before the end of the Tour, he'll still drop off the radar quite a bit actually, and we will go back to discussing doping about everyone else as well. May seem askew, but it's true.

 

[Digger]

I'm not sure that whole Lance doping issue would go away if he re-retired tomorrow. Too public a profile, and especially if the political rumours are true.

On a more generic level, what I've always found amusing with certain Lance fans is the way they dismiss the evidence showing that he doped. 'Axe grinders, whiners, jealous, losers, haters, liars, the French hating the Americans etc etc...yet at the end of the post, they say 'Lance probably did dope, but so did everyone else'!!! How can they arrive at this point, if they dismiss every piece of evidence anyway....Strange.

 

[BroDeal]

On a more generic level, what I've always found amusing with certain Lance fans is the way they dismiss the evidence showing that he doped. 'Axe grinders, whiners, jealous, losers, haters, liars, the French hating the Americans etc etc...yet at the end of the post, they say 'Lance probably did dope, but so did everyone else'!!! How can they arrive at this point, if they dismiss every piece of evidence anyway....Strange.

Immaculate doping. You see, Armstrong doped but the huge amount of evidence that shows that he did so cannot be trusted.

Of course another reason could just be that they want to dismiss evidence of Armstrong doping but at the same time realize how idiotic a claim of Armstrong being clean is. They just say that Armstrong probably doped to prevent themselves from being immediately written off as fools.

 

[beroepsrenner]

I wonder if in Coppi's day there was a bunch of cynics determined to discredit his performances any way they could. History remembers him as a great cyclist. History will most likely be the same for Armstrong so move on to the bigger picture and not the individual.

 

[blackcat]

I wonder if in Coppi's day there was a bunch of cynics determined to discredit his performances any way they could. History remembers him as a great cyclist. History will most likely be the same for Armstrong so move on to the bigger picture and not the individual.

you dont think the fact that doping has made donkeys into thoroughbreds, there is a slightly different context?

no flames

 

[BroDeal]

Why Armstrong?

Distaste for Armstrong goes way beyond whtever he did on a bike. In fact it is largely due to his behavior off the bike. It is the hypocrisy as he lies to cancer sufferers. It is the narcissism, and the apparent lack of any conscience.

Who doubts that Indurain was not just as doped as Armstrong? No one gives Indurain much crap because he was smart enough and humble enough to not make doping an issue.

 

[unsheath]

And make a comeback under the guise and pretence of cancer awareness.

Transparency Lance, transparency!!!!

 

[lean mean &green]

Who doubts that Indurain was not just as doped as Armstrong? No one gives Indurain much crap because he was smart enough and humble enough to not make doping an issue.

Indurain rode in an entirely different era, pre-festina affair. He wasn't asked to defend the entire sport in this way. Not really a fair comparison.

Btw I'm not a Armstrong is on bread and water guy. It's safe to assume that someone who's career began in the early nineties is guilty of taking some shortcuts. To what extent he and others are still taking shortcuts is hard to determine. I think the noose has tightened at least a little bit. If I had to guess I'd say that cheating is rampant but not so egregious or reckless.

LA will have two legacies. He will be remembered by most (general non-cycling public) as an icon of sport and social responsability. Within the cycling community I think he'll be known as the last of his kind. The last dinosaur to take the approach of complete denial and silence. He is in a difficult position because he is a source of strength for the cancer community and cannot risk that image by speaking more openly about doping. To borrow one of my favorite racing terms, he is being cooked in the double boiler.

 

[objective skeptic]

The last dinosaur to take the approach of complete denial and silence. He is in a difficult position because he is a source of strength for the cancer community and cannot risk that image by speaking more openly about doping.

Fair points, but I find that to be intrinsically contradicting. First, an "approach of complete denial and silence" is understating things JUST a bit, but I won't argue semantics.

Now, you say he can't risk his image. Agreed. So why, then, would you be so contentious and aggressive in defending yourself? Why build yourself up for a bigger, devastating fall if that image and cancer community is so important? And why in the world would you come back now and, according to many, start doping again? You've won, game over, why risk it? When you are trying to get away with something, one doesn't usually put a big target on your back. Those "in the know" seem to easily accept all the top riders are doping, and even in the US most don't really care anymore than it's a level playing field. Very little to gain and a lot more to lose with such an approach, if guilty. I just can't reconcile that.

It's easy to say everyone is doping and to win so must you. Heck, I'll admit there is virtually no one that would surprise me of PEDs in any sport these days. But I just don't know that you can always default to such an assumption. Carl Lewis is an example of a guy who dominated for a long time, even past his prime. I don't know if Carl was clean (and rumors circulated about him, too), but he was adamant Ben Johnson was cheating and was proven right. He's made recent comments about anyone running the 100m under 9.8 has to be on 'roids. Micheal Phelps must be cheating, too, right?

I just don't accept that it's impossible to be clean and dominate a sport full of cheaters. It should be very rare and why the skepticism is fully justified. However, given your post I quoted above, how can you be certain he's come back to doping with so much to lose? And if you allow the possibility he isn't doping now - 4 years away from the sport and nearly 38 - and he ends up on the podium, does it not then become entirely possible he wasn't doping in the past?

Just saying, it seems to easily dismissed that cancer quite possibly enabled some beneficial changes in physique, then you have the singular focus and approach to the TdF, incredibly strong teams and LA's high cadence style, not to mention natural expected gains pre vs. post cancer due to reaching his prime. Fair to say his physical dominance is "overrated" because of those factors (is it even arguable that in a few of those tours, and this year, he wasn't the strongest but had the strongest team?). Also, let's not "underrate" the will and mental toughness. I realize none of that is quantifiable, but then perhaps that's why it should not so easily be dismissed?

 

[Epicycle]

Why Armstrong?
He may have won the most TDFs but why not focus on Merckx? He won TDFs, classics, World championships and even sixes on the velodrome and is generaly regarded as the greatest cyclist ever. Do you think he didnt dope? If not, why not? Nobody disects his career like they do Armstrongs. What makes you think Hinault, Indurain or Anquetil not dope? I think its just that Armstrong is the man of the moment and the obvious target. Many of his adversaries have been caught and yet they are quickly forgotten. When and if he is tested positive, then discredit him, until then just get on with watching the races and appreciating the supreme athletic contest that it is. No other athletes that I know of have the workload that a professional cyclist has and unless you have experienced it yourself you will never understand.

Well obviously Merckx tested positive multiple times, Anquetil admitted he doped and there was testimony at the Festina trials that doping was systematic at Banesto.

I disagree about the workload of a pro cyclist. Many people have nonathletic careers that require the focus, long hours and dedication that pro cycling requires.

 

[blackcat]

Fair points, but I find that to be intrinsically contradicting. First, an "approach of complete denial and silence" is understating things JUST a bit, but I won't argue semantics.

Now, you say he can't risk his image. Agreed. So why, then, would you be so contentious and aggressive in defending yourself? Why build yourself up for a bigger, devastating fall if that image and cancer community is so important? And why in the world would you come back now and, according to many, start doping again? You've won, game over, why risk it? When you are trying to get away with something, one doesn't usually put a big target on your back. Those "in the know" seem to easily accept all the top riders are doping, and even in the US most don't really care anymore than it's a level playing field. Very little to gain and a lot more to lose with such an approach, if guilty. I just can't reconcile that.

It's easy to say everyone is doping and to win so must you. Heck, I'll admit there is virtually no one that would surprise me of PEDs in any sport these days. But I just don't know that you can always default to such an assumption. Carl Lewis is an example of a guy who dominated for a long time, even past his prime. I don't know if Carl was clean (and rumors circulated about him, too), but he was adamant Ben Johnson was cheating and was proven right. He's made recent comments about anyone running the 100m under 9.8 has to be on 'roids. Micheal Phelps must be cheating, too, right?

I just don't accept that it's impossible to be clean and dominate a sport full of cheaters. It should be very rare and why the skepticism is fully justified. However, given your post I quoted above, how can you be certain he's come back to doping with so much to lose? And if you allow the possibility he isn't doping now - 4 years away from the sport and nearly 38 - and he ends up on the podium, does it not then become entirely possible he wasn't doping in the past?

Just saying, it seems to easily dismissed that cancer quite possibly enabled some beneficial changes in physique, then you have the singular focus and approach to the TdF, incredibly strong teams and LA's high cadence style, not to mention natural expected gains pre vs. post cancer due to reaching his prime. Fair to say his physical dominance is "overrated" because of those factors (is it even arguable that in a few of those tours, and this year, he wasn't the strongest but had the strongest team?). Also, let's not "underrate" the will and mental toughness. I realize none of that is quantifiable, but then perhaps that's why it should not so easily be dismissed?

Objective Sketpic, how long have you followed cycling? Do you know the power wattages, Armstrong and Hinault hit on the finishing climbs?

Do you know about the history of GT winners before O2 doping? What age their talent manifested, how quickly they showed themselves to be GT riders in their careers?

Have you spoken to an oncologist, and seen how invasive the treatment is of an aggressive cancer and how it debilitates the body for the future of the individual.

Have you studied the capacities of GT riders, climbing and timetrialing, and compared them to Armstrong when he was a young professional.

Have you studied doping, in all its facets, and recovery doping?

Have you studied why Armstrong's power outputs can increase throughout a GT?

Have you studied the information available from Armstrong's ex teammates? Swart, Andreu, Vaughters, Landis?

Have you studied the history of Landis, Heras, Hamilton, Goussev?

Have you studied the EPO positives of 1999?

Have you studied the postive corticosteroid of 1999?



Now, my pertinent question to you is, if you have not studied these various aspects, how do you think you can pose a hypothetical to us that have an intimate knowledge of them?

 

[lean mean &green]

Distaste for Armstrong goes way beyond whtever he did on a bike. In fact it is largely due to his behavior off the bike. It is the hypocrisy as he lies to cancer sufferers. It is the narcissism, and the apparent lack of any conscience.

Who doubts that Indurain was not just as doped as Armstrong? No one gives Indurain much crap because he was smart enough and humble enough to not make doping an issue.

Indurain rode in pre-festina affair era. He wasn't asked to defend the entire sport against doping allegations in the way Armstrong has. Not really a fair comparison.

Most of the time when you attack LA you attack him with doping allegations so which is it? His use of PED's or his personality. If it's his personality we wouldn't have needed to create a new thread here. I fully recognize that they are overlapping but not so much that we would need to move it to the Clinic.

I'm not an LA is on bread and water guy either. It's safe to assume that someone who began their career in the early nineties has taken a lot of shortcuts. The extent to which he and others are still taking shortcuts is hard to determine. The noose has tightened. It seems to me that cheating remains rampant but less egregious. Can we all agree on that?

The problem with this whole LA discussion is that on both sides there are people who refuse to see shades of grey, pretend to be exercise physiologists, and who take little breaks from logic when it's convenient. There are a lot of people in the middle who are stuck reading insult filled posts while trying to discuss racing.

Both sides need the other so moving the discussion to the Clinic accomplishes nothing. LA supporters won't venture in here for no reason and LA critics won't stay here.

The cyclingnews forum is DOOMED.........unless.......drum roll please..........

...........the critics steer the new meat here immediately before covering up race analysis with 6 pages of the same doping "evidence" they posted the day before.

 

[runninboy]

And make a comeback under the guise and pretence of cancer awareness.

Transparency Lance, transparency!!!!

While i don't doubt there is a part of Lance that actually does want to promote cancer awareness, You could see his comeback coming for awhile.
He lived the movie star life. He has always gravitated toward the spotlight beyond cycling. From dating women that will land his photo on the front of People magazine to his choice of celebrity events he has always tried for maximum exposure. He is just like Madonna or some other has been. Why can't you just take your money go away & live your life. Why must you always be the center of attention? go away! GO AWAY
"are you still here??? its over. go home...go "
my favourite line from Ferris Buellers day off

 

[objective skeptic]

Have you spoken to an oncologist, and seen how invasive the treatment is of an aggressive cancer and how it debilitates the body for the future of the individual.
Well aware of this point. This does not help your cause. This point would say what Lance has done is impossible even with EPO and who knows what else. So either you are wrong on this, or, hmmm, doping is not an explanation.

Have you studied the information available from Armstrong's ex teammates? Swart, Andreu, Vaughters, Landis?
Yes, you mean largely hearsay and retracted statements. But Landis and Tyler Hamilton are interesting, aren't they? How many of LA's former teammates, rivals and others have been clipped during his career? And, yet, somehow the manhunt has never caught up to LA.

Have you studied the history of Landis, Heras, Hamilton, Goussev?
I know, I know. LA is just the best doper ever. Gotta love conspiracy theorists. Always an explanation, no matter how wild or baseless.

Have you studied the EPO positives of 1999?
This is the one thing I find truly damaging. I believe it's likely Lance doped pre-cancer, there's really no logic why he wouldn't have. Post, maybe early on. I don't buy the tampering excuse because I think it highly unlikely (I'd actually vote for tampering with the ID's after-the-fact, but also unlikely). But given the possibility and the witch hunt, put me down for 90% credible. Someone in the chain got paid off for the frame? Unlikely, yes, and not that I'm making that assumption but given what passes on the other side I would feel more than entitled to do so. Of course, I know the UCI take on all that is again dismissed. I accept the conflict of interest there, but there's a pattern of accepting everything pro-doping and dismissal or ignoring of the cons.

Have you studied the postive corticosteroid of 1999?
Yes, and, again, I know the take on that is a forged doctor's note ex-post. See above about the "pattern" of what constitutes evidence and what constitutes cover-up. That sort of stuff happens a fair amount in other sports, sometimes it's legit and sometimes it's a cover-up. But the problem with the latter is that sort of shoots down your "greatest doper ever" theory. Reminds me of people claiming George W Bush masterminded 9/11

I understand all that. Am I an expert? No, and I'm not one pretending to be. I completely understand the skepticism. But great champions are, in fact, typically defined by difficult to explain or incomprehensible feats. I understand the "science" against Armstrong being clean. What I asked is why you dismiss other factors that also have a very significant impact, and you're response is "....hypothetical". I've asked this a few different times, and it's becoming clear it continues to be ignored because it cites logical inconsistencies and contradictions in assumptions being made. You have all this circumstantial evidence, but the problem is when you look at motive, it points to him being clean (at least in the later tours). In other words, you come parade your science in a court of law and try to support your supposition, you're going to lose every time, and it's probably why Lance is winning these cases in the courts.

At the end of the day, it's all speculation. You're building a case with a pre-supposed opinion, look at this look at this, when the greats are by definition extraordinary, and sometimes that's not quantifiable or easy to wrap around. The last part of my post highlighted several unquantifiable issues that provided a significant edge, dismissed completely because it does not fit your argument. It's not surprising that less than the "best" can dominate sports when they are ahead of the strategy/technology curve (ever heard of the Fosbury flop?), and there's nothing underhanded about it.

 

[blackcat]

actually, verbal admissions are not "heresay" Objective Sketpic. If Betsy Andreu heard what she heard, that is first hand.

The corticosteroid TUE cannot be put down to conspiracy. Lance never had a TUE. It was thus, backdated.

You see, the "strategic and competitive advantages" are all open to be neutralised. Armstrong has said before, he sleeps high trains low, to get 10 gross points on his hematocrit.

Have you asked a haematologist if this is valid?

And if it is valid, why is not everyone doing exactly the same thing Armstrong is, because it is one of these competitive advantages you speak of, that can be neutralised.

Armstrong has talked about the blood and the importance of the blood. If indeed it was important, and you could lift your 'crit by ten points, the entire peloton would be in the Canaries or in St Moritz. But they are not. Makes you wonder.

Landis admitted to a journalist also, Armstrong doped. One of Armstrong's shill flaks.

It is not speculation, there are many on record. If there was a civil case to determine whether Armstrong had charged, you would be willing to admit it, because you would classify the process as legal and acceptable. All his blood records, coming in at 49, yet saying how compelling his 2003 starting crit number of 43 was? Why the disparity?

So there is more than enough evidence. You just deny the validity, and suggest it is all speculation, heresay, and rumour. Yet some have gone on record, in a court of law. His blood numbers are known, he has admitted to where he was in 2003. He has admitted to the blood being important.

And yet, you believe his focus on blood, is part of his competitve advantage, and focus on science and technology, a wealth of armory his competitors do not see too. This is pretty common in arrogance from American fans who subjucate an identity to vicarious pursuit of glory following Armstrong. You do not have to be American, but it reeks of the arrogance of Armstrong fans.

It is not all speculation. Good "medical programs" can give in excess of 10%, well in excess, and all of these riders are alpha types, and their physiologies are very similar, all unique, well, not within the peloton, but all off the curve in their natural talent. But the differentiation is minimal.

I wonder how the cast majority of Grand Tour riders in the past decade have been popped, and you appreciate that a good program can aid up to 20%, then this defies belief, it says, Armstrong's natural talent, could be in excess of 20% higher, than other riders. When the entire peloton, is separated by a minute differrence.

Try again Objective. I might start to call you Subjective Believer.

 

[objective skeptic]

The problem is, no one else heard what Betsy Andreu's heard. Again, you readily dismiss the possibility that she misheard or for other reasons flat out made it up. Sorry, people get ****ed and bitter and say stuff. Her statements are meaningless to me, they cannot be verified or refuted. Anyone can say anything, it doesn't even qualify as circumstantial evidence without corroboration, yet for you it's a smoking gun. No, it's not ALL speculation, just most of it.

I don't care about your hematologist point. Athletes sometimes exaggerate or intentionally make misleading statements. You don't expect Armstrong to truly divulge training techniques that give him an edge, do you? Again, you're picking and choosing statements that can be interpreted to support you either way - Armstrong says 10 points, well he's obviously lying! Armstrong says 2 points, he's obviously doing something else because that's not enough!

Oh, yes, THAT Landis who refused to "roll on Lance" to the USADA for a lighter sentence. Let me guess, your reporter's name is David Walsh? Some of those people who "have gone on record" in a court of law either lost the case, or provided "support" for those who lost a case.

I have 0 doubt that you can provide me every piece of information on the web that supports your case that Armstrong doped, no matter whether it's credible supposition or a wild, unsubstantiated accusation. I have 0 doubt that you will not acknowledge or consider anything that contradicts or weakens your position.

While even more reprehensible, have you considered his entire team was doped to the hilt while he staid clean? Would that not be a significant edge for an elite rider with an already strong team? You say his natural talent would have to be over 20% higher (or wait, is it 10%, LOL), and I say that statement shows how you completely dismiss the obvious non-doping advantages he had.

I'm a fan of Armstrong. I'll admit it. I have no love lost for the guy, though. I've said he's an arrogant jerk. The drug issue doesn't really even bother me - I'm fans of other guys in sports whom I suspect take something, and it's just the way it is. But the simple fact is there are no dominos to line-up pointing the other way or the other on Armstrong. Anyone who believes otherwise (on either side) is not being objective. I think it's an interesting subject because compelling arguments can be made on both sides, and it's fun knocking down the logical fallacies on both sides as well.

You guys are entertaining. He's the greatest doper ever, but he forgot his doctor excuse for some skin cream. An army of French police and drug testers have tried in vain to nab him for years (but there's that '99 "test", OHHH HAPPY DAY!!!) , yet somehow Betsy Andreu and his former masseuse know, eventhough Frankie admits he never saw Lance take anything. If only the French had been savvy enough just to hire one of those three! Darn, Greg Lemond should have been head of WADA!

That is why this debate borders on the ridiculous. It's filled with such logical fallacies that Armstrong is a master doper, yet shills and nobodies have intimate knowledge of what he's doing, but yet that's a bedrock of the theory. The cortiscoid is way back in '99, a trace amount and he wasn't sanctioned. It's a non-starter, but when you're building a straw man you grasp at straws. I guess LA didn't become a master doper until Stage 2 in '99, lol

But keep the title of subjective believer for yourself. It fits you better.

 

[blackcat]

you dont need a TUE if the product is not expected to show up.

No one really knows what Armstrong was doing. It has not been proven, but widely "assumed" he had Ferrari on a non-compete. Now, I was transparent, there is no proof of a non-compete.

Armstrong was a brilliant and charasmatic leader, in the despot paradigm, he did bring all 9 together, and they did sacrifice for him. Few could do that.

Armstrong was also more talented that anyone in the sport in the mind, much like Tiger and Michael Jordan, an integral part of their talent, was their belief, and expectation of winning. It defined their identity. No one can compete with Armstrong on that front.

They were also strategically brilliant, in bringing an MBA analysis, where to leverage economic heft, the "non-compete" etc. Came to the fore around 2002, as they continued to dial in the variables. Armstrong WAS brilliant in those respects. And more I have not mentioned and considered, gotta run.

cheers

 

[beroepsrenner]

you dont think the fact that doping has made donkeys into thoroughbreds, there is a slightly different context?

no flames

You see here is where you get it completely wrong! The one thing that gets me angry about this whole debate is the belief of outsiders that doping makes thoroughbreds out of donkeys. They are all thoroughbreds to begin with or they would not be protour riders. Doping only lifts the performance to a higher level. It is so easy for the armchair experts to pass domestiques off as donkeys because you dont seethem up the pointy end of the placings. In actual fact many of these inconspicuous riders work f.....g harder than their leaders. Many of them are just as capable physically but choose for various reasons to play a support role. If you have ever had your DS drive up along side you when you are near the back of the peloton when its averaging 50kph and tell you to go to the front and chase, you would know what I mean.
Show more respect for guys doing what you wish you could please!

 

[elapid]

You see here is where you get it completely wrong! The one thing that gets me angry about this whole debate is the belief of outsiders that doping makes thoroughbreds out of donkeys. They are all thoroughbreds to begin with or they would not be protour riders. Doping only lifts the performance to a higher level. It is so easy for the armchair experts to pass domestiques off as donkeys because you dont seethem up the pointy end of the placings. In actual fact many of these inconspicuous riders work f.....g harder than their leaders. Many of them are just as capable physically but choose for various reasons to play a support role. If you have ever had your DS drive up along side you when you are near the back of the peloton when its averaging 50kph and tell you to go to the front and chase, you would know what I mean.
Show more respect for guys doing what you wish you could please!

In a way, I disagree. Armstrong himself said something to the effect of "horses out of donkeys" in regards to Kohl. Yes, every professional cyclist is a superb athlete and is at the pinnacle of their sport. But the response to EPO is not equal, and there are athletes that respond better to EPO than others. Hence, the "thoroughbred out of donkey" moniker.