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

[scribe]

People forget that he was world champion at the age of 22. That's not anything like a Tour of course but it did show that he had incredible raw talent from a young age that could be explosive if perfected for a tour....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXsOR5O5hb0

Lots of gt guys gun for Worlds. Schleck is as GT as they get and he says he is preparing for this year's worlds.

 

[Anonymous]

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.

so why didnt susan and greg, take the offending posts, split them from the original topic into a new one, and then move it here...

simple.. its called moderation

(and yes, i expect a greg-rant for saying that.. hes not a moderator, better things to do, websites to fix, mothers to iron, jam to pot blah blah)

 

[Escarabajo]

Hog, you do realize that we've produced 20 pages of discussions on that in the clinic?

That's true, but more than 50% is garbage.

 

[Hugh Januss]

That's true, but more than 50% is garbage.

You think maybe he won't come over here?

 

[Escarabajo]

I meant to merge the two Armstrong blood values threads and mistakenly merged them w/ the official Armstrong doping thread - now all the posts are here.

Sorry about that - I can't un-do the change... or can't figure out how. We needed a new Official thread anyhow as this one had deteriorated into name-calling anyhow!

How long is it going to take to one of the Moderators to ban BanProCycling? He just registered with the new poster name "WonderLance". He was previously Arbiter. We have an excellent topic on hand and he/she is destroying the flow of this great forum. This is not the only thread that he has derailed. Look at all his posts and you will see that his comments don't make absolutely any sense at all. Just go and read his posts. There are several good posters that don't want to read a lot of that "garbage" and will decide to go to other forum.
Thanks.

 

[WonderLance]

How long is it going to take to one of the Moderators to ban BanProCycling? He just registered with the new poster name "WonderLance". He was previously Arbiter. We have an excellent topic on hand and he/she is destroying the flow of this great forum. This is not the only thread that he has derailed. Look at all his posts and you will see that his comments don't make absolutely any sense at all. Just go and read his posts. There are several good posters that don't want to read a lot of that "garbage" and will decide to go to other forum.
Thanks.

It is precisely because of this that I started a sock puppets discussion. So threads would not get interrupted with these paranoid accusations.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Wonderlance is not me as the mods will be able to tell you.

I have repeatedly asked the trolls not to disrupt the threads by attacking me. Can you point to a single post of mine that is trolling? No you can't. The trolls have now promised to ignore me, as I have been begging them to for days, so you should see threads clear up dramatically. By the way if you were genuinely concerned about this then you would have told off RaceRadio and TFF by now for continually disrupting threads. But you have not. It seems you're another one who only wants one opinion in the clinic.

And yet the paranoid accusations continue.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Out of all the garbage posted overnight, I see "better recovery" put forward by the "ignored one", as a reason for Armstrong's success. Part of his physiological make up, that counter acts all those dopers.
Does he not realise that recovery is at least the equal of performance, when it comes to the practice of doping?
As clear an indicator as say a Ricco-esque Aspin climb, is the guy who, never, ever, has a bad day".

Note: British Summer Time ended a few weeks ago and the UK is now using EST.

 

[blackcat]

recovery doping and top up blood transfusions decide the Tour.

insulin and blood autologous. Cant be tested for, but supercharge the riders. That is Armstrong's real talent, getting the the best recovery program. For all my allegations on Garmin, those guys do not have that advantage. I reckon they would have pumped Armstrong at the Tour with that up their sleeve. They can use that armoury also, I disagree with it, but would not deny them that opportunity to compete on an even playing field. Just not their communications strategy, explicitly denying it.

 

[RhodriM]

OK, just entered all of LA's blood values from the past year into a spreadsheet and graphed it. Shaded in blue is the normal range (85-95) for OFF-score. Anyone want to bet that LA got transfused immediately before the TdF? Based on how quickly it dropped after 6/16/09, if he was tested a week earlier he may have been above the 133 cutoff. Seems ironic to me that these values were posted by LA as evidence that he doesn't dope...

That off-score spike sticks out like a sore thumb, but this doesn't seem to be being mentioned anywhere except on web-forums. Are there any more articles surfacing about this?

 

[mikkemus23]

Why isnt it mentioned on cyclingnews? Shouldnt it be?

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

Why isnt it mentioned on cyclingnews? Shouldnt it be?

Mainstream commercial cycling media won't report on Armstrong doping issues because it is a major turn off for newcomers to the sport.

For the vast majority of individuals within the cycling industry and community it is commercial suicide to question "The Boss". Ask Christophe Bassons or Greg LeMond.

With Lance around everyone gets richer, be it the bike companies advertising on these pages, the riders, the team and race sponsors, race owners, the UCI etc

The reason is that Lance's utterly false perception as a hero in the mind of newcomers to the sport and "occasional" fans means that the industry has a big new market to conquer, and this fickle audience would drift away if the top dog and major crowd puller was revealed to be as dishonest and odious as he really is.

 

[Epicycle]

OK, just entered all of LA's blood values from the past year into a spreadsheet and graphed it. Shaded in blue is the normal range (85-95) for OFF-score. Anyone want to bet that LA got transfused immediately before the TdF? Based on how quickly it dropped after 6/16/09, if he was tested a week earlier he may have been above the 133 cutoff. Seems ironic to me that these values were posted by LA as evidence that he doesn't dope...

The hematocrit needs a smaller scale on a separate graph to see exactly what is going on with it.

But these numbers likely show the refined approach to beating the biopassport. Instead of seeing manipulation as a wildly fluctuating hct or hgb it will express itself as more of a steady line especially during times where they should fall like during a Grand Tour.

Nothing new, the same type of thing happened when the EPO test was introduced. Reticulocytes fell across the board as cyclists started transfusing en masse. I wager that if the UCI could plot average hematocrit fluctuation during this year's Grand Tours they would find it to be less than the early or middle part of this decade.

 

[blackcat]

The hematocrit needs a smaller scale on a separate graph to see exactly what is going on with it.

But these numbers likely show the refined approach to beating the biopassport. Instead of seeing manipulation as a wildly fluctuating hct or hgb it will express itself as more of a steady line especially during times where they should fall like during a Grand Tour.

Nothing new, the same type of thing happened when the EPO test was introduced. Reticulocytes fell across the board as cyclists started transfusing en masse. I wager that if the UCI could plot average hematocrit fluctuation during this year's Grand Tours they would find it to be less than the early or middle part of this decade.

but power output stayed the same (which is what you implied, but left unsaid, and for the newcomers, I can add)

 

[RhodriM]

For the vast majority of individuals within the cycling industry and community it is commercial suicide to question "The Boss". Ask Christophe Bassons or Greg LeMond.

Indeed, but I'm surprised that more aren't 'reporting on the reporting' - they can report that a Danish paper is questioning his blood values without having to agree with it.

The news outlets saw fit to advertise LA just going for a ride in Scotland, surely these current accusations are as newsworthy. (I mean, they must be important - he's even mentioned them on his twitter.)

 

[Anonymous]

Mainstream commercial cycling media won't report on Armstrong doping issues because it is a major turn off for newcomers to the sport.

For the vast majority of individuals within the cycling industry and community it is commercial suicide to question "The Boss". Ask Christophe Bassons or Greg LeMond.

With Lance around everyone gets richer, be it the bike companies advertising on these pages, the riders, the team and race sponsors, race owners, the UCI etc

The reason is that Lance's utterly false perception as a hero in the mind of newcomers to the sport and "occasional" fans means that the industry has a big new market to conquer, and this fickle audience would drift away if the top dog and major crowd puller was revealed to be as dishonest and odious as he really is.

The other reason is that, while the values are suspicious, they do not constitute a doping offense. I am sure things like this are the reason he was targeted by the UCI for increased testing. Right now it is a cat and mouse game. He is a doper and everyone knows it, but he knows how to beat the system. VeloFidelis wrote that maybe there should just be a set of parameters that riders should have to stay within, and just drop the whole dope testing thing. I think in reality, that is what we have.

The fact is that the graph merely points out that he almost certainly transfused. The problem is that there is no test for autologous blood transfusion in place as far as we know. In the absence of that, the UCI has a set of parameters that it uses to profile a riders blood. It appears that the best they can do now is look at that profile and determine if they need to test a rider more. There are thresholds like 50 HCT that will get you suspended from racing, but as far as I know, there is no blood profile that currently qualifies as a doping offense. That is the problem with autologous blood transfusion. It isn't a drug, and there is no test that has been sanctioned by the UCI to prove a rider has transfused. What the Danish scientist said is that this is what autologous blood transfusion looks like. That doesn't mean it is a doping offense, and therefore the media would need to be careful in what it prints regarding it. It also means that there is significant deniability on the part of Mr Armstrong because other factors COULD have caused it. He knows that as do all of the riders in the peloton.

Where there is smoke, there is fire. This is a significant amount of smoke, and the best anyone can hope for is that it will cause some who have been on the fence about the issue to say "The guy is a cheat." It is however far from being a doping offense, so don't expect it on your local news anytime soon.

 

[blackcat]

what would be interesting would be to present all of Armstrong's tests before Don Caitlin. And then get his opinion.

 

[blackcat]

The other reason is that, while the values are suspicious, they do not constitute a doping offense. I am sure things like this are the reason he was targeted by the UCI for increased testing. Right now it is a cat and mouse game. He is a doper and everyone knows it, but he knows how to beat the system. VeloFidelis wrote that maybe there should just be a set of parameters that riders should have to stay within, and just drop the whole dope testing thing. I think in reality, that is what we have.

The fact is that the graph merely points out that he almost certainly transfused. The problem is that there is no test for autologous blood transfusion in place as far as we know. In the absence of that, the UCI has a set of parameters that it uses to profile a riders blood. It appears that the best they can do now is look at that profile and determine if they need to test a rider more. There are thresholds like 50 HCT that will get you suspended from racing, but as far as I know, there is no blood profile that currently qualifies as a doping offense. That is the problem with autologous blood transfusion. It isn't a drug, and there is no test that has been sanctioned by the UCI to prove a rider has transfused. What the Danish scientist said is that this is what autologous blood transfusion looks like. That doesn't mean it is a doping offense, and therefore the media would need to be careful in what it prints regarding it. It also means that there is significant deniability on the part of Mr Armstrong because other factors COULD have caused it. He knows that as do all of the riders in the peloton.

Where there is smoke, there is fire. This is a significant amount of smoke, and the best anyone can hope for is that it will cause some who have been on the fence about the issue to say "The guy is a cheat." It is however far from being a doping offense, so don't expect it on your local news anytime soon.

well I did not need to see the graph to know he was using autologous transfusions. TFF just being polite.

What I want, are the graphs and bloodwork from Kohl, Peipoli, Ricco, Schumacher, Sella, and seeing if any one of them was careful, and their numbers were as benign as some of the Garmin riders.

 

[elapid]

The other reason is that, while the values are suspicious, they do not constitute a doping offense. I am sure things like this are the reason he was targeted by the UCI for increased testing. Right now it is a cat and mouse game. He is a doper and everyone knows it, but he knows how to beat the system. VeloFidelis wrote that maybe there should just be a set of parameters that riders should have to stay within, and just drop the whole dope testing thing. I think in reality, that is what we have.

The fact is that the graph merely points out that he almost certainly transfused. The problem is that there is no test for autologous blood transfusion in place as far as we know. In the absence of that, the UCI has a set of parameters that it uses to profile a riders blood. It appears that the best they can do now is look at that profile and determine if they need to test a rider more. There are thresholds like 50 HCT that will get you suspended from racing, but as far as I know, there is no blood profile that currently qualifies as a doping offense. That is the problem with autologous blood transfusion. It isn't a drug, and there is no test that has been sanctioned by the UCI to prove a rider has transfused. What the Danish scientist said is that this is what autologous blood transfusion looks like. That doesn't mean it is a doping offense, and therefore the media would need to be careful in what it prints regarding it. It also means that there is significant deniability on the part of Mr Armstrong because other factors COULD have caused it. He knows that as do all of the riders in the peloton.

Where there is smoke, there is fire. This is a significant amount of smoke, and the best anyone can hope for is that it will cause some who have been on the fence about the issue to say "The guy is a cheat." It is however far from being a doping offense, so don't expect it on your local news anytime soon.

+1. The media (at least so-called "Western" media) usually only report on facts. There is very little investigative journalism anymore (see the movie "State of Play" for a more visual example of the death of true journalism). DiLuca tested positive: fact. Astraloza tested positive: fact. There was tension in the Astana team during the TdF: fact. However, there were no or few reports about these prior to them being declared facts. There are always exceptions, such as Menchov and the Vienna Clinic, but in general the media is now about sound bites of digestible information and not good investigative journalism. We are now bystanders to the world around us, but very few are digging to find out what is happening underneath the surface. And I can sometimes understand why - look at the reaction to Walsh's books. Media outlets just don't want to go there because it is too hard and too controversial. I would hazard a bet that if we were faced with the same peloton and the same doping problem in the 1960s, then we would see a rash of investigative reports on the UCI's (mis-)management of doping and doping and blood profiles of riders like Armstrong. But its the 2000s and all we see are stories about wins, miracles and nefarious accusations of doping.

 

[Anonymous]

+1. The media (at least so-called "Western" media) usually only report on facts. There is very little investigative journalism anymore (see the movie "State of Play" for a more visual example of the death of true journalism). DiLuca tested positive: fact. Astraloza tested positive: fact. There was tension in the Astana team during the TdF: fact. However, there were no or few reports about these prior to them being declared facts. There are always exceptions, such as Menchov and the Vienna Clinic, but in general the media is now about sound bites of digestible information and not good investigative journalism. We are now bystanders to the world around us, but very few are digging to find out what is happening underneath the surface. And I can sometimes understand why - look at the reaction to Walsh's books. Media outlets just don't want to go there because it is too hard and too controversial. I would hazard a bet that if we were faced with the same peloton and the same doping problem in the 1960s, then we would see a rash of investigative reports on the UCI's (mis-)management of doping and doping and blood profiles of riders like Armstrong. But its the 2000s and all we see are stories about wins, miracles and nefarious accusations of doping.

Great commentary on journalism. Unfortunately, news is merely filler between commercials anymore. Once advertisers began influencing journalistic content, it lost its value. Just look at the number of stories we get on new miracle prescription drugs. Yes they report when Pfizer gets busted for a billion or so and criminal charges, but the underlying problems only make the news if they are part of an unavoidable BIG story like that. You can find good news, but you have to look hard.

 

[Mellow Velo]

"Team Monitoring Programmes".
Considering who were the first off the mark to pay to have these systems put into place, for me, immediately sounded alarm bells.

Now, I'm not saying that all teams uses monitoring for unscrupulous ends, but given the circumstances behind 3 of the teams who jumped on this bandwagon, I was sceptical, from the start.

It now should be pretty evident to all, that, as a tool for flying, "just under the radar", they are pretty effective.
If nothing else, it is something the B Passport highlights, quite clearly.

So, if nothing else: "Thanks for that, Lance."

As an aid to effective doping, McQuaid's pet project, is a must have.
Riders can "top up", during the Grand tours, while producing a graph that actually looks more normal than..........well......normal.

 

[Race Radio]

what would be interesting would be to present all of Armstrong's tests before Don Caitlin. And then get his opinion.

That would be logisticly difficult, take too much time, errr.... cost too much. Besides why would you need to? He is already the "Worlds Most Tested Athlete"TM

 

[Bala Verde]

Was there any coincidence between the 'coffee incident' and his values staying the same/shooting up?

Perhaps the inappropriate arrival of the Starbucks Squad forced some of the riders to hurry transfusions and/or dillution methods which decreased accuracy and volume and/or affected the administration of certain masking agents.

 

[mikkemus23]

Hoho, this case has just highlighted that the Passport is really a dopers tool. And so is UCI & Pat.

All while the media looks the other way. Look, no doping here, nothing to see here.

F***in hilarious.

 

[Cerberus]

Several things. Firstly, it's often asserted in this forum, without any sources provided or scientific papers confirming this to be true, that Armstrong in particular is a legendary responder to doping. So why are we not allowed to say he is a legendary responder to recovery? Some people are just great responders to everything - training, the lot.

Sure you're allowed to say that. In fact I have no doubt that Armstrong is a great athlete. It is however a fact that you can use doping without getting caught. Futhermore there is very compelling evidence both that his main competitors used doping and that the gains from doping are huge (more than 10% from EPO alone). So the question is not whether he's a great recoverer, trains hard, or has a lot of talent. The question is whether he is so massively better than other riders, that even though they're doped and he's clean he can still win (by significant margins mind you). That in my mind is not plausible and abnormal blood values obviously don't help.