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

[Mellow Velo]

Dang....these late night sessions do produce a lot of activity.
Very unkind of the Danish to release that story, late in the Euro day.
Takes a while.....

So BPC succeeds in kicking up a dust storm around yet another piece of very suspicious Armstrong doping evidence.

Having read ALL the sensible posts. Two things on diahrrea and dehydration.
1) I was going to point out that this was Schummacher's gambit at the worlds and we all know he was blood doping. Someone beat me to it.

2) Why didn't Armstrong's HCT go through the roof and get him booted from the 2003, after the Cap’ Découverte ITT, when he was utterly dehydrated, in the +40C heat?
After all, he took three days to properly recover and pressumably, he wasn't able to rehydrated in time for his automatic (yellow jersey wearer) dope test.

Looks like two transfusions for the Tour. In line with Kohl's exposé.

 

[Cobber]

Dang....these late night sessions do produce a lot of activity.
Very unkind of the Danish to release that story, late in the Euro day.
Takes a while.....

So BPC succeeds in kicking up a dust storm around yet another piece of very suspicious Armstrong doping evidence.

Having read ALL the sensible posts. Two things on diahrrea and dehydration.
1) I was going to point out that this was Schummacher's gambit at the worlds and we all know he was blood doping. Someone beat me to it.

2) Why didn't Armstrong's HCT go through the roof and get him booted from the 2003, after the Cap’ Découverte ITT, when he was utterly dehydrated, in the +40C heat?
After all, he took three days to properly recover and pressumably, he wasn't able to rehydrated in time for his automatic (yellow jersey wearer) dope test.

Looks like two transfusions for the Tour. In line with Kohl's exposé.

Ha ha ha.. I was thinking the same thing - almost 5am here. I guess, with work starting in a few hours, I am calling in sick today. Damn insomnia......

+1 as far as the rest of your post goes. It is kind of ironic really, that Lance posted his blood numbers on his site as proof that he didn't dope while to my (albeit untrained) eyes this provides some of the best evidence that he has doped, other than the '99 TdF EPO and corticosteroids results. I would love to see what some of our other members that are trained in this area think, like Krebs303 for instance?!

 

[Anonymous]

(Looks like we've given that loon TFF the slip, eh? Woah, what a weirdo)

The cortisone issue from way back was a mistake which I quickly owned up to. You, however, just stumble about without admitting anything, even when you were caught red handed as happened in the Logistics thread. This appears to stem from your belief you are engaging with somebody from the past and mix them up with me and my positions. But you still should put your hand up when you get it wrong.

You're getting too caught up in these niggly disputes that don't really achieve anything and get a bit too personal. You shouldn't drag yourself down to the levels of the ultra trolls like Foody and Black, Race. I hate to see you like this. You've got to shake yourself out of it and get back on substance before they melt your brain.

Well, better really be off now...5am here!

Wow, you are THAT stupid. Nice post Arbiter. (actually, I know that you are not THAT stupid. You revealed who you are on purpose. It is part of your "hey, look how I am trolling you guys" shtick.)

 

[East Sycamore]

Honest question for someone who knows more about these things:

What is the typical error in these tests? In other words, if the same blood sample was tested in two different labs (or even by two testers in the same lab), how close together would the hematocrit levels be? Within .01? .1? 1?

 

[Anonymous]

Honest question for someone who knows more about these things:

What is the typical error in these tests? In other words, if the same blood sample was tested in two different labs (or even by two testers in the same lab), how close together would the hematocrit levels be? Within .01? .1? 1?

Wouldn't matter in terms of levels compared over time, so the point is moot. The only way this is germane is if the samples for the given time period were performed in different labs. As it is, they were tested by the same lab in the same way, so the overall picture would still be the overall picture regardless of who tested the samples, so long as it was all done within one lab.

Armstrong blood doped this year. That is all you really need to know.

 

[mikkemus23]

Just read this (bs) in a Norwegian paper (vg.no) - interview with Thor Hushovd and a doctor...

Dont think the doc has anything to do with cycling and I will question his statements about too low crit levels to withstand the tour.

Sorry for the bad languish, I just used a web based translator.

Thor Hushovd (31) doesnt like that a Danish scientist suggests that Lance Armstrong doped during this year 's Tour de France.

"There are many who are trying to say that Lance has doped. They need to stop, and rather give him the opportunity to come back to cycling. Cycling is obviously what he loves more than anything, says Thor Hushovd to VG Net today.

Professor Hans Erik Høier at Hematologisk department at Ullevål University Hospital senses itself that Lance Armstrong actually has a hemoglobinlevel below average.

"I not can see anything here that would be able to go in the direction of the fact that Lance Armstrong has recieved blood transfusions. What really strikes me with these levels, is that he can cope and be competative in such a race.

- But Lance Armstrong is not someone average. He is a former processed with "cancer medicine". What it means for his physiology I dont know, he says to VG Net.

The professor is crystal clear on that the values that are published not has any value as evidence.

Just like Bolt

Lance Armstrong was the big draw here when Thor Hushovd invited to Oslo Grand Prix for a few weeks ago. income went to cancer, and Armstrong praised Hushovd up in the clouds.

But now spread in other words are new rumors about Armstrong, even when he for sure is among the most testet in the world.

"I think it will be too dumb. It is just as with Usain Bolt. People have found that it is not is possible to run as fast as and then spread rumors. One can anywhere on much puzzling and it is obvious that people like to comment, says Thor Hushovd.

 

[East Sycamore]

Wouldn't matter in terms of levels compared over time, so the point is moot. The only way this is germane is if the samples for the given time period were performed in different labs. As it is, they were tested by the same lab in the same way, so the overall picture would still be the overall picture regardless of who tested the samples, so long as it was all done within one lab.

Armstrong blood doped this year. That is all you really need to know.

I would think that even tested in the same lab, by the same person the results could vary a little each time simply due to human error or the precision of the equipment. The question is how much is the variance? If it is .001% then obviously we can ignore it, but if it is 2 or 3% then you could say that the changes in his Hematocrit could be within the error of the test.

Now before you go and get all excited, I am NOT trying to say that LA didn't dope - I just asked what the accuracy of the test is. There are plenty of other things to be suspicious about with these results including the timing of the spikes.

 

[samb01]

The question is how much is the variance? If it is .001% then obviously we can ignore it, but if it is 2 or 3% then you could say that the changes in his Hematocrit could be within the error of the test.

Seeing as how it used to be common to show up at the tour with a 49+ hematocrit (like the entire US Postal team in 1999), we would have seen an avalanche of people testing at 50+ by accident if the margin of error was something like +/-1.

 

[blackcat]

Just read this (bs) in a Norwegian paper (vg.no) - interview with Thor Hushovd and a doctor...

Dont think the doc has anything to do with cycling and I will question his statements about too low crit levels to withstand the tour.

Sorry for the bad languish, I just used a web based translator.

Thor Hushovd (31) doesnt like that a Danish scientist suggests that Lance Armstrong doped during this year 's Tour de France.

"There are many who are trying to say that Lance has doped. They need to stop, and rather give him the opportunity to come back to cycling. Cycling is obviously what he loves more than anything, says Thor Hushovd to VG Net today.

Professor Hans Erik Høier at Hematologisk department at Ullevål University Hospital senses itself that Lance Armstrong actually has a hemoglobinlevel below average.

"I not can see anything here that would be able to go in the direction of the fact that Lance Armstrong has recieved blood transfusions. What really strikes me with these levels, is that he can cope and be competative in such a race.

- But Lance Armstrong is not someone average. He is a former processed with "cancer medicine". What it means for his physiology I dont know, he says to VG Net.

The professor is crystal clear on that the values that are published not has any value as evidence.

Just like Bolt

Lance Armstrong was the big draw here when Thor Hushovd invited to Oslo Grand Prix for a few weeks ago. income went to cancer, and Armstrong praised Hushovd up in the clouds.

But now spread in other words are new rumors about Armstrong, even when he for sure is among the most testet in the world.

"I think it will be too dumb. It is just as with Usain Bolt. People have found that it is not is possible to run as fast as and then spread rumors. One can anywhere on much puzzling and it is obvious that people like to comment, says Thor Hushovd.

I bet Armstrong pocketed the 150k US.

 

[East Sycamore]

Seeing as how it used to be common to show up at the tour with a 49+ hematocrit (like the entire US Postal team in 1999), we would have seen an avalanche of people testing at 50+ by accident if the margin of error was something like +/-1.

That's basically what I was thinking, I was just hoping somebody with more medical knowledge than me could put a more definite number to it. I've poked around online, but haven't found anything definitive.

 

[Franklin]

The cortisone issue from way back was a mistake which I quickly owned up to.

Oh my, what a surprise ^^

On a more serious note, I'm getting tired of this. The ludicrous non-science you use and the baited reactions.. psshhhhh. This forum is getting less and less readable, so I guess you are winning.

 

[Race Radio]

Honest question for someone who knows more about these things:

What is the typical error in these tests? In other words, if the same blood sample was tested in two different labs (or even by two testers in the same lab), how close together would the hematocrit levels be? Within .01? .1? 1?

If the tests were run by the UCI or WADA then the difference is negligible as they use machines that are calibrated with a test sample from the manufacture. The UCI allows for a variable of .03, so the 50% limit is actually 50.03%.

 

[East Sycamore]

If the tests were run by the UCI or WADA then the difference is negligible as they use machines that are calibrated with a test sample from the manufacture. The UCI allows for a variable of .03, so the 50% limit is actually 50.03%.

Thank you, that answers my question.

 

[HL2037]

Just read this (bs) in a Norwegian paper (vg.no) - interview with Thor Hushovd and a doctor...

Dont think the doc has anything to do with cycling and I will question his statements about too low crit levels to withstand the tour.
[/I]

Well, as somebody has already posted, Mørkebjerg has published scientific articles on the subject, f.eks. this one titled "Changes in blood profiles during Tour de France 2007":

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

EDIT: Oh, did you mean the doctor in the article with Thor Hushovd, or Mørkebjerg?

 

[joe_papp]

Why no media coverage?

A close friend and LA True Believer today said he didn't think the speculation that LA had blood doped @ '09 Tour credible b/c there was no coverage of the Danish claims in US media...except on Twitter, VelocityNation and my blog, and whomever else has picked it up since then. My response was - well, I can certainly see why no US media outlet would dare report this...after USPS's media "hit list" or "blackball list", would you risk being first to report on this kind of speculation? I AM surprised Alan Abrahamson isn't working on a story...if anyone I thought he would go after it - but maybe he is. Or if not him, perhaps Sally Jenkins or Juliet Macur

 

[sgreene]

Lance Armstrong impressed in his Tour de France comeback this year with a third place. But maybe it was not surprising for one of Denmark's leading blood researchers, James Dark Mountain from Bispebjerg Hospital, has looked at American's blood values over and they can indicate the use of blood doping, "he DR gate.

Both the number of red blood cells, hematocrit and hemoglobin were essentially the same on the first day and last day of Tour'en, which is quite unusual.

Furthermore, increased hematocrit value during 11th-14th July, representing the middle of Tour'en, 40.7 to 43.1, which is also strange, does Dark Mountain.

Can also be caused by diarrhea
- What we know from our research is that the hard work as a Tour de France will see a marked decrease of these blood values, and it seems we are not in Lance Armstrong, he says to DR, and suggests that there may be due blood transfusions.

- This does not mean that he has received it, but it could be one explanation, he says, but insists that another reason may be diarrhea or dehydration.

- But the picture the contradiction that we would normally see. Lance Armstrong's values are unchanged from the first to the last sample, and would normally expect a decline. This fall also sees the cyclists values during the Giro d'Italia a few months before, but not so during the Tour de France


Oh my God!
What was Lance thinking by releasing his blood values when he certainly knew that James Dark Mountain from Bispebjerg Hospital would find something suspicious?! He must be REALLY nervous now!!

 

[issoisso]

Funny how people skew the comments by the norwegian guy with Hushovd to make it seem he's defending armstrong. Especially considering he starts out by saying the only way these values belong to someone who can ride that well up the Ventoux is if he's using masking agents.

 

[Jonathan]

A close friend and LA True Believer today said he didn't think the speculation that LA had blood doped @ '09 Tour credible b/c there was no coverage of the Danish claims in US media...

If the US media had picked it up, it would probably have been proof of a "witch hunt" anyway, rather than evidence against Armstrong.There is no evidence against Armstrong, remember?

 

[Cobblestones]

I read this story and it basically confirms what I have been writing here all along.
1) The limits on the blood passport are ridiculously high. It is very simple to dope and not even come close to those limits.
2) The people in the know have a very good idea who is doping, when and how much doping is going on, because of the passport (which is why I call the passport a small, partial success). At least it helps targeted testing.

I think it also confirms my suspicions about Wiggins which I raised a few days ago in the other thread. In fact one of the articles cited earlier here:
http://politiken.dk/sport/article766139.ece mentioning by the same guy (Jakob Morkeberg) makes the same point.

I quote the relevant part:

Lille stigning
Mest opsigtsvækkende er det, at Wiggins i en prøve under årets Tour de France har en stigning i sit hæmoglobinniveau og sin såkaldte off score.

»Det ser lidt sjovt ud. Normalt skal de falde gennem Touren. Det kan være en blodtransfusion, der får dem til at gøre sådan her.

He doesn't say anything about Wiggins's values during the Giro which do fall quite a bit.

The other article which was quoted (the Norwegian VG) is, I think, pure spin. The physician says:

Jeg ser ikke noe her som skulle kunne dra i retning av at Lance Armstrong skulle være bloddopet. Det som virkelig forbauser meg med disse blodverdiene, er at han klarer å gjennomføre og prestere sånt i et slikt ritt.

The irony is that the second sentence can be interpreted in two ways.
"What really surprises me is that he can finish at all and even perform so well in such a race with these blood values"

Yes, we have wondered ourselves and speculated on this forum how, with crits much lower than 5-10 years ago, speeds haven't dropped. My money's on AICAR or similar stuff. But that's for a different thread.

 

[mikkemus23]

EDIT: Oh, did you mean the doctor in the article with Thor Hushovd, or Mørkebjerg?[/QUOTE]

I meant Høier, not Mørkebjerg.

 

[Cobber]

I read this story and it basically confirms what I have been writing here all along.
1) The limits on the blood passport are ridiculously high. It is very simple to dope and not even come close to those limits.
2) The people in the know have a very good idea who is doping, when and how much doping is going on, because of the passport (which is why I call the passport a small, partial success). At least it helps targeted testing.

I think it also confirms my suspicions about Wiggins which I raised a few days ago in the other thread. In fact one of the articles cited earlier here:
http://politiken.dk/sport/article766139.ece mentioning by the same guy (Jakob Morkeberg) makes the same point.

I quote the relevant part:


He doesn't say anything about Wiggins's values during the Giro which do fall quite a bit.

The other article which was quoted (the Norwegian VG) is, I think, pure spin. The physician says:


The irony is that the second sentence can be interpreted in two ways.
"What really surprises me is that he can finish at all and even perform so well in such a race with these blood values"

Yes, we have wondered ourselves and speculated on this forum how, with crits much lower than 5-10 years ago, speeds haven't dropped. My money's on AICAR or similar stuff. But that's for a different thread.

+1... completely agree Cobbles. I would also add that there seems to be a conspiracy by the UCI to make these values ridiculously high so McQuaid can tell everyone that the sport is clean. Such a shame he was re-elected as UCI prez.

Sorry if this is a naive question - but does anyone know where the UCI limits came from? Particularly for OFF-score. Was there a (good) scientific study to arive at these values, or did they just take the average range and add 50%?

 

[Jonathan]

Lower limits would mean more court cases and more difficulty winning them. I'm not sure if it's worth the money, or if that sum is available.

 

[dienekes88]

Lower limits would mean more court cases and more difficulty winning them. I'm not sure if it's worth the money, or if that sum is available.

And higher probability of false positives.

Sensitivity and specificity.

 

[Cobber]

Lower limits would mean more court cases and more difficulty winning them. I'm not sure if it's worth the money, or if that sum is available.

So you are saying that the organization (UCI) responsible for policing the sport has made the limits so high so they won't have to defend any court cases?! That's like saying that the police are only going to arrest someone if they kill more than one person, but 1 is OK......

If you look at Armstrong's blood values thet Issoisso posted, he is well within the normal range except for a couple of instances where he was well above the normal range - almost 20% higher than normal in one test! How much blood would have to be tranfused to get a riders OFF-score above 135? Probably a hell of a lot since this level is 50% higher than the normal range. How many riders since the passport was implemented have tested with an OFF-score higher than 135?

 

[Cobber]

And higher probability of false positives.

Sensitivity and specificity.

Sensitivity is respect to scientific testing is a measure of how many true positive events are detected by a particular assay. Specificity is a measure of how many positives identified by a particular assay are true positives. Clearly, the bio-passport is very specific... but I would argue that it is extremely insensitive!