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

[Dr. Maserati]

BPC - you keep quoting JV as a source for a variation because of the time of day the tests were performed.
You do realise that JV is a Cycling Manager and has no medical background?
Also do you know at what times the tests were performed at?

If there are other studies available that prove this line then I would very much appreciate you sharing that with us.

 

[Escarabajo]

BPC: I have to agree with Dr. Maserati. JV is a cycling manager of one of the cyclists on question. How can we take his word objectively? Even if he was outside the world of cycling I would believe the scientist more than I would believe JV. Third, given the history of doping in the tour, those hematocrit jumps are in line with everything that we have known about when the riders take their refills. So it is very hard not to believe the scientist with all the evidence in hands show proves of irregularities in their blood profiles.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

....
That's my view. I won't get into another long exchange about it.

You are entitled to your view - however you call us 'internet scientists'- yes there are many here who do not have a medical background or even a cycling one - but who are able to research and interpret information when it is presented.

Which is why if you had more information to help us interpret the profiles it would help. It is why I asked the specific question:

"If there are other studies available that prove this line then I would very much appreciate you sharing that with us."

 

[RHitaliano]

Every team has doctors and so does the UCI, and do the cycling press. This is where Vaughters is getting his information (And JV has seen a lot more of these profiles than anybody here,)

All of these people were happy with Wiggins' profile and held it up as an example of a clean rider.

I can't square the two matters. I can only presume the Denmark guy is just pointing out that one couldn't rule out blood doping from these profiles, and he probably doesn't grasp, or doesn't care, about the certainty with which these remarks can be interpreted by the "internet scientists". He was just asked to chew over the public records by some local media and browsed at the results without checking what time of day the tests were taken or any of the other factors.

It's no wonder the mainstream media hasn't touched it. Having seen these remarks on Wiggins, I find it even more doubtful he is right to raise questions about Armstrong.

That's my view. I won't get into another long exchange about it.

Wiggins profile is not just example of clean, he is like the inside of operating room with black light "sterilized". I know because I am scientist who can calculate power and doping from television coverage.

 

[red_flanders]

Back on topic.

And interview with Moerkeberg

http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/armstrongs-bio-passport-critic-speaks

That was clear, sober non-speculative and reasonable. Thanks for posting.

And definitely interesting that he has his questions about Wiggins' values as well. Wish they'd have gone more into that.

 

[SirLes]

What we really need is for half the TDF field to agree to manipulate their blood and give details of how and when etc and the other half to race clean.

All cyclist to be subjected to twice daily blood tests.

Then we might be in a position to evaluate subsequent riders blood test results.

Although even then I think the sample sizes would be too small and the variations in tour routes, weather conditions, day to day racing tactics etc would still make it difficult to make comparisons as there are so many variables.

Very frustrating if you want to know the truth and can't believe anybody's word.

 

[Hugh Januss]

It's no wonder the mainstream media hasn't touched it. Having seen these remarks on Wiggins, I find it even more doubtful he is right to raise questions about Armstrong.

That's my view. I won't get into another long exchange about it.

Oh, cool does that work then?
Well it's my veiw that none of these noble sportsmen take any kind of PEDs and that all of the tests in the last few years have been wrong. So we can just go back to enjoying the pure spectacle of pro cycling. Thank god.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Seems to have more to say on Wiggins, than uncle Lance.

I actually think he has a lot more to say about LA than Wiggins. He says that Wiggo's values don't follow the pattern he expects, but gives no detail.

AS: Some have said that Wiggins' values are also suspicious. Do you agree with that?

JM: He hasn't published as many values, but his values are not following a pattern that you would expect from a physiological point of view.

With LA, he responds to the 'are you suspicious' question with a yes and then goes on to highlight the aspect of the data that is most suspicious.

AS: Part of what you find suspicious about Armstrong’s values is that the hematocrit stays very steady, with a couple of spikes in the middle?

JM: Yes....I am well aware of the analytical and biological variations in the hemoglobin concentration, that is why I have emphasized that the important point when interpreting these values is that the last value is not lower than the first.

Later, he goes on to use the word suspicious himself.

JM:...but the reason I'm saying these values are suspicious is that he's doing strenuous exercise, and then you would expect to see a decrease, as you see in his values during the Giro. That's what's suspicious.

But the strongest statement from a scientists perspective is the one where he talks about "beyond the margin of variance". That's not speculation about unusual data trends. It's a scientific conclusion that there has to be some explanation for the lack of decrease, because it cannot be explained by noise.

AS: What's the margin of error on these numbers? Is a .3 in hemoglobin fluctuation significant?

JM: It's not significant. That's why I'm not going into detail with every single number. I'm just saying that the first value and the last value are almost equal, and that the decrease you would expect is beyond the margin of variance for those numbers. That's the take home message.

If the quote is correct, IMHO it's not a comment from someone afraid of law suits. He is quite properly restricting his comments to the point he is confident about, but he sure is hammering that one home.

Go Dr(to be) Dark Mountain!

 

[yourwelcome]

Immaculate doping.

Well, in reality - until he's caught doping properly and is suspended, it IS immaculate doping.

As infuriating as it obviously is to the CN forum.

A failed doping test, gendarmes escorting him to the car and suspension from competition is what it's going to take.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Well, in reality - until he's caught doping properly and is suspended, it IS immaculate doping.

As infuriating as it obviously is to the CN forum.

A failed doping test, gendarmes escorting him to the car and suspension from competition is what it's going to take.

Well then you guys are home free cause the UCI will never let that happen, they've already cashed the check.

 

[BroDeal]

Well, in reality - until he's caught doping properly and is suspended, it IS immaculate doping.

'He was caught. Six positives for EPO in retrospectively tested urine. Armstrong is a doper. There is really no question about it unless you are too blinded by adulation to see the truth.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Wiggins profile is not just example of clean, he is like the inside of operating room with black light "sterilized". I know because I am scientist who can calculate power and doping from television coverage.

Please tell me how that works as i am very intersted to know & who you think is doping and who's not doping.

Just to comment on armstrong, if he gets eliminated for drugs the media will go crazy, personally i hope for the sport that he does get busted as initially it will be bad but the cancer of the doping problem of this sport will be eliminated!

 

[Hugh Januss]

'He was caught. Six positives for EPO in retrospectively tested urine. Armstrong is a doper. There is really no question about it unless you are too blinded by adulation to see the truth.

Funny how some Lance fans make the jump from "he never tested positive" to "wow that is a lot of anecdotal evidence, I guess there is a real good chance he doped and is lying". While other Lance fans make the jump from "he never tested positive" all the way to "well everyone was doing it so it's OK that he did it too even though he lies and says he never did".

 

[Pandora]

Lance posted his blood numbers on his site

Is this complete list of results: see link?

I'm wondering a bit... why there are no results dated 17/3/2009 - the date of Showergate? They all came negative, according to LA, but I don't see them.

BTW, LA laments over 24th control since his return till then. On the list there are only 17 controls before 17/3/2009, i.e. at least 7 are missing. Or I am the one missing something here?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Is this complete list of results: see link?

I'm wondering a bit... why there are no results dated 17/3/2009 - the date of Showergate? They all came negative, according to LA, but I don't see them.

BTW, LA laments over 24th control since his return till then. On the list there are only 17 controls before 17/3/2009, i.e. at least 7 are missing. Or I am the one missing something here?

I had wondered about that too - however I think that the riders can only get their bio-Passport results through their Federation and the UCI.

The March 17th control was done by AFLD - so in fairness he may not be able to get access to it - although someone with more info may be able to confirm or correct this view.

 

[Anonymous]

Funny how some Lance fans make the jump from "he never tested positive" to "wow that is a lot of anecdotal evidence, I guess there is a real good chance he doped and is lying". While other Lance fans make the jump from "he never tested positive" all the way to "well everyone was doing it so it's OK that he did it too even though he lies and says he never did".

I am in this camp. I was just ignorant of the evidence.

It appears the noose around LA's neck is significantly tighter than it was pre-TdF. Does anyone think these latest revelations regarding LA's blood values are significant or will it just be another polarizing observation?

 

[red_flanders]

Please tell me how that works as i am very intersted to know & who you think is doping and who's not doping.

Just to comment on armstrong, if he gets eliminated for drugs the media will go crazy, personally i hope for the sport that he does get busted as initially it will be bad but the cancer of the doping problem of this sport will be eliminated!

History strongly, unequivocally suggests otherwise. But surely many will claim the new era of clean cycling at the top of their voices, as did Paul after the 1999 Prologue, many after Manzano, many after Puerto, Garmin, Damsgaard, and on and on...

 

[Bala Verde]

To play the devil's advocate:

If Mr. Armstrong is such an accomplished and medically/technically advanced doper, by working with the best of the best of the best (Sir), why would he publish his results online for everyone to scrutinize and discuss.

If he has the best team, then surely 'his medical experts' must have told him that certain, rather difficult to explain spikes, in the profile could show up, would show up and would eventually lead to public scrutiny in case he published them online.

1.1 The team exists, but didn't tell him or forgot to mention it to him
1.1.1 WHOOOPS

1.2 The team exist and did tell him
1.2.1 He ignored the advise, believing that if he stayed within the set UCI boundaries no one had anything against him.
1.2.2 He chose to weigh the pros and cons and assumed that the PR would outweigh public scrutiny. On top of that, staying within a bandwith would make it impossible in any case to get caught/convicted.

1.3 The team doesn't exist
1.3.1 Mr. Armstrong is convinced that after so many years he is an expert, he knows what he is doing and can do it alone. He also knows that if he stays within a certain bandwith, no one has got anything against him. PR over scrutiny.

1.4 The team doesn't exist.
1.4.1 Mr Armstrong didn't dope and the anomalies are natural anomalies or variations that sometimes seem inexplicable, but do occur in human bodies.
1.4.2 Mr. Armstrong didn't dope and a variety of external factors combined (dehydration, diaharea) explain the anomalies.
1.4.3 = 1.4.1 and 1.4.2 combined Natural and External factors

 

[TRDean]

To play the devil's advocate:

If Mr. Armstrong is such an accomplished and medically/technically advanced doper, by working with the best of the best of the best (Sir), why would he publish his results online for everyone to scrutinize and discuss.

If he has the best team, then surely 'his medical experts' must have told him that certain, rather difficult to explain spikes, in the profile could show up, would show up and would eventually lead to public scrutiny in case he published them online.

1.1 The team exists, but didn't tell him or forgot to mention it to him
1.1.1 WHOOOPS

1.2 The team exist and did tell him
1.2.1 He ignored the advise, believing that if he stayed within the set UCI boundaries no one had anything against him.
1.2.2 He chose to weigh the pros and cons and assumed that the PR would outweigh public scrutiny. On top of that, staying within a bandwith would make it impossible in any case to get caught/convicted.

1.3 The team doesn't exist
1.3.1 Mr. Armstrong is convinced that after so many years he is an expert, he knows what he is doing and can do it alone. He also knows that if he stays within a certain bandwith, no one has got anything against him. PR over scrutiny.

1.4 The team doesn't exist.
1.4.1 Mr Armstrong didn't dope and the anomalies are natural anomalies or variations that sometimes seem inexplicable, but do occur in human bodies.
1.4.2 Mr. Armstrong didn't dope and a variety of external factors combined (dehydration, diaharea) explain the anomalies.
1.4.3 = 1.4.1 and 1.4.2 combined Natural and External factors

I will go with the 1.2 scenario. This just feeds the PR machine...Mr LA can claim SSDD, whooo is meeee, all the same crap...and become an even bigger celeb than he was before. Makes sense to me.

 

[Epicycle]

Yes the overwhelming theme of Lance's comeback has been him trying to manipulate his message and failing.

He made a big deal of the Catlin program...then had to dump it.

He made sure it was known he wasn't paid a salary by Astana...but couldn't suppress the huge appearance fees he was getting.

He grew his hair out to show he wasn't hiding anything from French testers...but that was after he decided to hold up a doping test with a long shower.

He tries to paint Contador as the naive young racer...only to see Alberto triumph in spite of his manipulations.

He releases his blood values...without any explanation of changed numbers and seemingly without any understanding of how they'll be scrutinized.

He twitters incessantly...and comes off as whining about the doping tests he claims will vindicate him.

There's a thread in the racing forum about how people feel differently about Armstrong than Merckx. It seems like every public thing Armstrong does is calculated to shape his image. Is he Twittering about picking his kids up at school just to tell what is going on in his day or is he doing it to prove he's not an absent father? So much of it is politics. I'm sure he really cares about cancer but his ego pushes that to the background as far as his public image goes.

 

[blackcat]

Epi, disagree.

I think he has successfully controlled the message. How many twittees does he have? Yeah, a more appropriate name there never was.

How much was the Caitlin fiasco publicised in the MSM? The launch was publicly lauded. So he was 20 steps ahead, when you are 20 ahead, you can take one back.

Armstrong won, game, set, match.

It is an indictment on journalism and the media. Mutch like foreign policy and conflicts, the press is just not qualified to hold power, money, and vested interest to account.

 

[blackcat]

I am in this camp. I was just ignorant of the evidence.

It appears the noose around LA's neck is significantly tighter than it was pre-TdF. Does anyone think these latest revelations regarding LA's blood values are significant or will it just be another polarizing observation?

no significance whatsoever. The 99 results were far more damning, and look how he played that.

 

[Anonymous]

no significance whatsoever. The 99 results were far more damning, and look how he played that.

I'm tempted to agree with you. I am intrigued with the tenor of the recent articles though. It seems like there is a new "boldness" to some of the commentary.

 

[blackcat]

Walsh did get up the US press and heavily criticised their integrity. But I know Walsh thinks one British rider was charged at the Tour, yet he has not entered into this opinion publicly. I think it behooves Walsh to go on record with his views, because otherwise the Armstrong episode looks like a witch-hunt. Ofcourse, he could find himself with a big libel suit to go in print with his opinion.

ESPN and SI and NYtimes, and WSJ all changed their editorial stance. PR firm Public Strategies did not really neutralise that completely, but most of the articles were still diplomatic and writing in message, not overt opinion or reportage from an anti-Armstrong pov. The wider media were still just the press release stenographer of first resort. Beltway broadsheets and papers of record do not get to the hoi polloi Armstrong is shilling his FRS or Nike shoes to. He knows his customer, and they love him, how many following him on twitter now? Second to Ashton Kutcher?

 

[yourwelcome]

'He was caught. Six positives for EPO in retrospectively tested urine. Armstrong is a doper. There is really no question about it unless you are too blinded by adulation to see the truth.

I think you misunderstood my point.

In my books, an 'immaculate doper' is somebody who gets away with it.

Providing he's been doping, LA fits that description, non?