Lance posts drug use details !

[elapid]

Different laboratories will have different reference ranges. Sharpe and others in their paper "Development of reference ranges in elite athletes for markers of altered erythropoiesis" (Haematologica 87:1248, 2002) reported a reference range of 38.8-49.6% for hematocrits in male athletes and that the hematocrit was increased by 1.8-2.3% when living at an altitude of 1730-2200m.

The hematocrit reference range for female athletes was slightly lower (34.3-45.0%) than male athletes.

El Imbatido, I am not sure if there is a relationship between type 1 diabetes and anemia, but you are borderline anemic. Are you vegetarian? I would recommend a consult with your doctor to determine if there is a possible cause for your low normal hematocrit and whether you need iron supplements.

 

[Anonymous]

You know the amazing thing about those numbers Lance lists? While riders like Kohl had their crit up to like 55, and used every drug under the sun flowing through their veins, Lance has been riding clean with his crit of 41, been out for over 3 years, recently broke his collarbone, is almost 38, and he can still kick these guys butts.

so, what's he on smart guy?
how do these numbers compare to basso?
what's basso on?

 

[Anonymous]

I felt that they made tactical errors during this Giro and expressed it, though I was met by some resistance here. The fact is that didn't win a stage, and unless Levi or Lance can pull off a whopper, they won't. A lot of us second guessed going to the Gila and pounding on pros making $15k a year and Cat 1's as prep for the Giro. A lot of us questioned why Levi was peaking in Feb or March, if he was truly going to try to win the Giro. And the team tactics on Stage 16 (and in hindsight, several more stages).

But for all of their lack of risk in race tactics, I think JB's taking a big risk by putting so much into Lance being able to perform at the Tour. It's as if he's going to let Contador ride on his own, and base the team around helping Lance, and to me that's a big risk, but look at the corner he's painted himself into.

But there could be a reward. If Contador wins the Tour, and he very well might, JB would have to make some serious blunders along the way to not have people perceive him as making the right decisions.

Part of JB's success in the past was that he was like Joe Torre managing the Yankees. When you're heading up the most powerful team in the sport...

jb sucks and is stupid.. lance sucks and is THE WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD!
blah blah blah...

condator is the team leader in france. levi and lance (and others) will drag cotador into attack position on the climbs, just like astana alwasys does, and contador will in tdf.
if lace goes top five everybody is happy.. goes podium.. thrilled.

where are you getting your lance is going to take over the team stuff?
what's the evidence?

jb has won how many major tours with now many different personnel?
who among them says he's a bad tactician?

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Sharpe...reported a reference range of 38.8-49.6% for hematocrits in male athletes and that the hematocrit was increased by 1.8-2.3% when living at an altitude of 1730-2200m.

Good post Elapid. I've heard, but don't have numbers in links, sorry, that showed the most benefit was indeed gained by spending 2-3 weeks around 2000m or so. Going up to 4,000m or higher gave only small gains in hematocrit. It's not going to make your crit go from 41 to 49.9.

In June of 1993 Tony Rominger spent the month in Leadville, Colorado (3,000m), riding up Mt. Evans (4,000m) all the time to prepare for the Tour. Of course what else was going on was that he was a client of Dr. Ferrari. Considering the era, who knows what Tony's real numbers were (or those around him, it obviously wasn't just him). But that was the first real time I heard about someone doing such a thing - extreme altitude training to build hematocrit for cycling. Several years ago when I was more serious about riding, I spent two weeks near Mammoth Lakes in California, sleeping at 9,000', and riding the passes around there. When I came back down to sea level and rode up 2,000' hills, there was definitely a gain I had made with my crit maybe now 43 instead of 40. I can only imagine if I had a private doctor to assist me as well.

 

[Anonymous]

jb sucks and is stupid.. lance sucks and is THE WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD!

Good to see you on board. I guess the other question to jb is "What have you done for me lately?"

Funny, seems to me that without Contador, Astana is the greatest one week American stage race team in the world.

 

[OctaBech]

jb has won how many major tours with now many different personnel?
who among them says he's a bad tactician?

Putting together the strongest riders for a train or finding one unbeatable rider isn't a tactic, it's more of a strategy.. actually it's neither without a rather liberal interpretation.

 

[BigBoat]

Good post Elapid. I've heard, but don't have numbers in links, sorry, that showed the most benefit was indeed gained by spending 2-3 weeks around 2000m or so. Going up to 4,000m or higher gave only small gains in hematocrit. It's not going to make your crit go from 41 to 49.9.

In June of 1993 Tony Rominger spent the month in Leadville, Colorado (3,000m), riding up Mt. Evans (4,000m) all the time to prepare for the Tour. Of course what else was going on was that he was a client of Dr. Ferrari. Considering the era, who knows what Tony's real numbers were (or those around him, it obviously wasn't just him). But that was the first real time I heard about someone doing such a thing - extreme altitude training to build hematocrit for cycling. Several years ago when I was more serious about riding, I spent two weeks near Mammoth Lakes in California, sleeping at 9,000', and riding the passes around there. When I came back down to sea level and rode up 2,000' hills, there was definitely a gain I had made with my crit maybe now 43 instead of 40. I can only imagine if I had a private doctor to assist me as well.

Pros will spend time training at altitude (couple weeks max) to get used to climbing with less 02 before Grand Tours, much like doing long 5-7 hour rides to get used to sitting the **** on the saddle and getting high overall time spent at threshold. But they wont stay there long enough to get much crit benefit and the fact that you only got from 40 to a 43% staying at 9000 feet shows the typical reality.

To get to 50% un-doped you'd have to be at 12,000 feet for several months on end.. Short of becoming a monk in Nepal or smoking 6 packs a day you'd have no chance in hell of getting that high undoped. NO WAY! Why did it block out **** and not hell by the way?

 

[Parrot23]

Maybe a rather stupid pt. to add, as a recreational/fitness cyclist, but my HT was 46 recently. But that's in a blood test following a 12-hour complete fast, with no liquids at all. So dehydration definitely must have kicked it up from a typical value. Definitely not living at altitude, and no medical programs here!

 

[ElChingon]

Maybe a rather stupid pt. to add, as a recreational/fitness cyclist, but my HT was 46 recently. But that's in a blood test following a 12-hour complete fast, with no liquids at all. So dehydration definitely must have kicked it up from a typical value. Definitely not living at altitude, and no medical programs here!

Yea, I've had similar tests and results, fasting HT doesn't count, but if you could send us your urine sample so we could test for EPO

 

[Parrot23]

but if you could send us your urine sample so we could test for EPO

LOL, I thought so. Just going for a ride; first hill will expose my fitness pretensions. Gotta start to fly at higher altitudes, but have been confined to my cage a bit much these days. Talkin too much.

I just thought of something politically incorrect: isn't it true that male baseline HT values are above female HT values, ie. that male blood is "superior" to female blood generally speaking, for endurance purposes?

Not something that's talked about too much. Shsss!

 

[stephens]

All this talk prompted me to pull out last year's physical paperwork and it shows my hematocrit to be 39.8. Just 0.8 over the "normal" range. Is this something I should be concerned about or need to boost to more normal level? At that time I was even still smoking half-pack a day (I quit six months ago after twenty years of steady, but moderate smoking) so maybe my level now is even lower? Hmm...

 

[Eva Maria]

To get to 50% un-doped you'd have to be at 12,000 feet for several months on end.. Short of becoming a monk in Nepal or smoking 6 packs a day you'd have no chance in hell of getting that high undoped. NO WAY! Why did it block out **** and not hell by the way?

Even several months at 12,000 feet would not get you to 50 without dope.

 

[BigBoat]

Maybe a rather stupid pt. to add, as a recreational/fitness cyclist, but my HT was 46 recently. But that's in a blood test following a 12-hour complete fast, with no liquids at all. So dehydration definitely must have kicked it up from a typical value. Definitely not living at altitude, and no medical programs here!

Well it depends alot on how hard you training... If your training very hard for Grand Tour racing your crit will drop... If I got you to do a 4 week block of V02 max repeats twice a week and some hard 3-6 hour races it would drop!

Some guys will get mid 40s, even upper 40s if at high altitude and with naturally high crit. But those who train super hard will typically have 40-43% which is pretty crappy compared to the average stationary or lightly active person. Lances is 41%.

 

[jfleischmann]

Basso puts everything up.... its very impressive. Much more detail than Big America Texas.

Whiteboytrash, once again proving xenophobic a*sholes don't just come from America.

 

[Parrot23]

Anyone see this comment on Lance's twitter yesterday:

"That goes in the "bull****" category. When you're born a donkey and all of a sudden become a thoroughbred, then we know."

I think it's a comment by him, but could be mistaken. Is this a dig at Kohl?

The "donkey" above is is a pretty good description of Lance himself. Wasn't he a middling "donkey" in TDF before meeting "Dr." Ferrari" and his "medical program'? Couldn't TT or climb worth diddly squat--or even finish the Tour. Other than the World's, a fairly middling classics rider, not in the class of a Boonen or a Devolder, or a Museeuw (yes, I know he was jacked).

His V02 max figures are reported to have been pretty middling compared with say a Lemond or Indurain, and certainly compared with XC skiers, he's not even in the same ballpark.

 

[elapid]

Anyone see this comment on Lance's twitter yesterday:

"That goes in the "bull****" category. When you're born a donkey and all of a sudden become a thoroughbred, then we know."

I think it's a comment by him, but could be mistaken. Is this a dig at Kohl?

The "donkey" above is is a pretty good description of Lance himself. Wasn't he a middling "donkey" in TDF before meeting "Dr." Ferrari" and his "medical program'? Couldn't TT or climb worth diddly squat--or even finish the Tour. Other than the World's, a fairly middling classics rider, not in the class of a Boonen or a Devolder, or a Museeuw (yes, I know he was jacked).

His V02 max figures are reported to have been pretty middling compared with say a Lemond or Indurain, and certainly compared with XC skiers, he's not even in the same ballpark.

I am not sure about the quote and I am not a Lance fan, but his objectives pre- and post-cancer were different and this may well explain his GT performances prior to 1999. Firstly, he was a one-day rider pre-cancer. He won the World Championships, Fleche Wallone and individual stages of the TdF. He was not a GT contender. David Walsh also uses the argument that his pre-1999 TdF performances are not in accordance with his improvement. But I think this argument is flawed because pre-1999, Armstrong was a domestique and not a team leader. He would blow up on the hills pulling for his leader and he had no reason to finish high on TT because he wasn't going for wins or GC. However, I am only going that far in support of Lance because, as you pointed out, physiologically he did not have the VO2 max or power output figures supposedly required for a GT winner.

 

[Parrot23]

He won the World Championships, Fleche Wallone and individual stages of the TdF. He was not a GT contender. David Walsh also uses the argument that his pre-1999 TdF performances are not in accordance with his improvement. But I think this argument is flawed because pre-1999, Armstrong was a domestique and not a team leader.

Okay, thanks for that info. Fleche Wallone is nothing to sneeze at, etc. And I see the domestique argument.

 

[whiteboytrash]

Whiteboytrash, once again proving xenophobic a*sholes don't just come from America.

...the knife cutes deep.

 

[BroDeal]

Pros will spend time training at altitude (couple weeks max) to get used to climbing with less 02 before Grand Tours, much like doing long 5-7 hour rides to get used to sitting the **** on the saddle and getting high overall time spent at threshold. But they wont stay there long enough to get much crit benefit and the fact that you only got from 40 to a 43% staying at 9000 feet shows the typical reality.

To get to 50% un-doped you'd have to be at 12,000 feet for several months on end.. Short of becoming a monk in Nepal or smoking 6 packs a day you'd have no chance in hell of getting that high undoped. NO WAY! Why did it block out **** and not hell by the way?

Uh-oh. I live at a little under 5000 feet. Ride sometimes at 8K+ feet. Trail run occasionally at 12K+. And I have had my hematocrit measured at 52%. I was not aware I was smoking six packs a day.

Like anything like this, values form a distribution, probably close to a standard one.

 

[BroDeal]

David Walsh also uses the argument that his pre-1999 TdF performances are not in accordance with his improvement. But I think this argument is flawed because pre-1999, Armstrong was a domestique and not a team leader.

This is not right. In the '95 and '96 time frame, Armstrong was numero uno at Motorola. It was effectively his team. In the years before that, he was team leader at many races. I don't recall him even riding races like Paris-Roubaix, where he could have helped Bauer and Anderson. He was as babied as Lemond was when he got over to Europe. The difference is that Lemond quickly showed that he had the goods, and Armstrong showed that he would never be more than a one day rider--well, until he met Dr. Ferrari in 1995 and began to improve.

 

[elapid]

This is not right. In the '95 and '96 time frame, Armstrong was numero uno at Motorola. It was effectively his team. In the years before that, he was team leader at many races. I don't recall him even riding races like Paris-Roubaix, where he could have helped Bauer and Anderson. He was as babied as Lemond was when he got over to Europe. The difference is that Lemond quickly showed that he had the goods, and Armstrong showed that he would never be more than a one day rider--well, until he met Dr. Ferrari in 1995 and began to improve.

I think we are agreeing, but from different points of view. Pre-1999 he was a one-day racer and was not a GT contender. I don't think you can take results from a TdF when his aims were completely different as proof that he doped. I have no doubt that his performances were enhanced, but there is much more convincing evidence out there than comparing GT results pre and post-cancer when his aims were different.

 

[Anonymous]

I think we are agreeing, but from different points of view. Pre-1999 he was a one-day racer and was not a GT contender. I don't think you can take results from a TdF when his aims were completely different as proof that he doped. I have no doubt that his performances were enhanced, but there is much more convincing evidence out there than comparing GT results pre and post-cancer when his aims were different.

I disagree because that is part of the weight of evidence that overwhelms the irrational idea that he was clean when added to the other evidence.

 

[stephens]

I could have sworn that the user agreement of this website forbids us from posting accusatory "so-and-so doped" type posts without direct evidence to back that up (which i would interpret as official failed tests, confessions, etc.).

 

[elapid]

I disagree because that is part of the weight of evidence that overwhelms the irrational idea that he was clean when added to the other evidence.

I'm not sure what you are saying here: Lance was doping pre-1999? If so, I also completely agree. How could he not be in the early to mid 1990s when EPO use was so prevalent in the peloton and still get the results that he did? So what's the difference between pre- and post-cancer? Probably Ferrari. Based on Coyle's paper, it definitely was NOT body weight, VO2 max, lactate threshold, or power output (raw or per kg). So the only reasonable conclusion is he had the assistance of someone who knew the best combinations, doses and timing. This is the one common denominator that was missing pre-cancer and present post-cancer.

 

[Anonymous]

I could have sworn that the user agreement of this website forbids us from posting accusatory "so-and-so doped" type posts without direct evidence to back that up (which i would interpret as official failed tests, confessions, etc.).

There are 6 of them, count 'em.