• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Lance posts drug use details !

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
A

Anonymous

Guest
elapid said:
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.

Sorry I must have misunderstood. I completely agree with all of what you post there. My mistake.
 
Apr 11, 2009
2,250
0
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
Uh-oh....And I have had my hematocrit measured at 52%. I was not aware I was smoking six packs a day.

LOL, start taking a baby aspirin now to thin your blood! Thick blood, dehyradation can be recipe for a heart attack. Just kidding, but something to consider. Not a Dr. here.:cool:

Incidentally, I once read a book on the Alaskan mushing dogs (huskies that pull sleds in the Iditatorad, all day for multiple days).

Apparently a lot of dogs, and esp. these huskies, have blood that's like sludge (very oxygen rich). Almost twice as thick as human blood. Blood this thick would give any human a heart attack. But it's why dogs can run, and run, and run, even ordinary ones.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
The normal hematocrit range for all dogs, regardless of how big or small, trained or not, is 39%-55%. Greyhounds are usually around the 50-55% mark. So not greatly different to humans.

For the Iditarod dogs, their mean hematocrit when untrained is 49%, 44% for trained dogs, and 35% in dogs completing the 1868 km race in as quick as 8 days. Not only does severe exercise induce marked anemia in these dogs, but it also causes marked decreases in hemoglobin (oxygen-carrying component of blood). Furthermore, their white cell counts were significantly increased and there was no regenerative response to the anemia, both of which are indicative of stress.

Makes you wonder why professional cyclists feel the need for drugs when cycling 3000+ km in 21 days?!
 
Apr 11, 2009
2,250
0
0
Visit site
Elapid and BigBoat, thanks for the info. on HT. I learn more on the forum than I do from reading the main site. Amazing that HT depresses with intense exercise (never knew that), yet these guys would register high values during races.

Not sure why I read that even the average dog has very thick blood; not sure what the reference is to, but am sure I read they have very sludge-like blood. Maybe it's not HT related. I don't know. Wikipedia VO2 max article says Iditarod sled dogs have VO2 maxes of 240! Whoosh! (3x Lance Armstrong's).

That article also notes Lemond at a reported 92, and Bjorn Daelie, the Norwegian XC skier at 96 (possibly over a 100, as 96 reading was taken out of season!). I believe the XC skiing figures (whole of body work: arms, back, legs, shoulders, everything, and lots of hill climbing, whereas bike is really legs alone). Daelie was something else. Still remember his races.

Something else I read while ago: the V02 max of even the most sedentary draft horse is in the 100's. Just found one site, with V02 max of thoroughbred racehorses at 180. Irony: there are big doping problems in horse racing, too. Trainers even use Polar HRM's on horses (training zones etc.).

http://www.tufts.edu/vet/sports/oxygen.html

The endurance kings may be the pronghorn antelope in the U.S. West. Can sustain 40mph for 30minutes, and would finish a marathon in 40 mins apparently. But strangely VO2 max seems to be lower than horses.

http://discovermagazine.com/1992/dec/thepronghornspro172

Or maybe it's those birds that migrate from New Zealand to Alaska, right across the Pacific, in one hop, with no stops. Now that's performance. :D Check out the critter's nose (beats Trek aerodynamics any day).:rolleyes:

http://alaska.usgs.gov/science/biology/shorebirds/barg_updates.html

One politically incorrect question: what is the typical HT value for a female vs. male (speaking human beings here)?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Thoughtforfood said:
...and any minute, monkeys will fly out of my a s s.

fair question.. does he have failed drugs tests for each of his winning tours.. if not, the question raised earlier, about unprovable allegations stands.. your response to that was that they are not unproved allegations, but 6 failed drugs tests.. which is why i wonder in all sincerity, are there records for failed drugs tests in 2000, 2001, 2002 etc etc etc

wheres WBT when you need him.. he would have the information.. :D
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hang on.. shouldnt this thread be drug TEST details and not USE, or am i a bit slow noticing that?
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
Visit site
Okay on Lance... He had modest pro talent undoped but he would have never ever won a one-day classic clean EVER. In fact he would be struggling just in a group of 50 riders if he had been. Even if everybody was not doped an 82 V02 max (Lances clean best) would never get you a big big pro win unless there was some kind of fluke.

He could have won some races in the USA and he maybe could have ridden some European races as a water bottle rack. LOL

The normal crit range for a woman by the way (not training and not an elite athlete) is 36-46%. And undoped hard training female cyclist would luckily have a 46%... But probably more like 39.
 
May 14, 2009
151
0
0
Visit site
dimspace said:
fair question.. does he have failed drugs tests for each of his winning tours.. if not, the question raised earlier, about unprovable allegations stands.. your response to that was that they are not unproved allegations, but 6 failed drugs tests.. which is why i wonder in all sincerity, are there records for failed drugs tests in 2000, 2001, 2002 etc etc etc

wheres WBT when you need him.. he would have the information.. :D

2000 or 2001, no hEPO in Lance's urines so he was one of the first to use soap! Maybe thanks to spanish labs which "tested" their experimentation on urine samples.

About Lance pre-cancer abilities to race a GT: the good rider even un-protected, are able to obtain a decent result! What kind of work could he have done when his team had nothing to protect, he didn't finish his 2 first TDF and was more than 36mn off the winner.
The most terrible is that he never showed tha he could pass a serious mountain stage like were Riis and Indurain before finding "supplements" of O2.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
dimspace said:
fair question.. does he have failed drugs tests for each of his winning tours.. if not, the question raised earlier, about unprovable allegations stands.. your response to that was that they are not unproved allegations, but 6 failed drugs tests.. which is why i wonder in all sincerity, are there records for failed drugs tests in 2000, 2001, 2002 etc etc etc

wheres WBT when you need him.. he would have the information.. :D

Oh no, there aren't positives from those years. If fact, I am quite sure that while he doped before cancer, and was using EPO during the 1999 tour, he definitely quit after that.....it was everyone else around him that got busted. By 2000 his heart was 6 times the size of that of an elephant, and had learned the miraculous "spinning" technique on climbs that no other rider in the history of cycling had ever discovered.....

The funny thing is that people like you know deep down he doped....listen to that small still voice.....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Thoughtforfood said:
The funny thing is that people like you know deep down he doped....listen to that small still voice.....

and i dont deny 1999... the rest... god knows.. (if you beleive in that kinda of thing... or is JB god :eek:)
 
Good call on Bjørn Dæhlie, Parrot. Anyone looking into this guy will find that the man was an absolute freak of nature who was placed on Earth by God to XC ski! He was basically crushing everyone before EPO really started to take over XC skiing. Though it was around when he got big, the Norwegians were a powerhouse that dominated the sport in every aspect, technology, training, everything. But in 1994 even their "Dream Team" of Sture Sivertsen, Vegard Ulvang, Thomas Alsgaard & Dæhlie were miraculously beaten on their home turf by the Italians...who were later revealed to being doped to their eyeballs. It's my belief that because the money isn't there, it took more time for doping to become totally widespread in the sport though, not until probably the 2002 Olympics, which were marred by doping. Of course by 2006 the sport had become like cycling, where you watch the races, then wait to see who passes doping controls, and then wonder who really got away with what. :(

dimspace said:
and i dont deny 1999... the rest... god knows.

I think that's fair.
 

whiteboytrash

BANNED
Mar 17, 2009
525
0
0
Visit site
dimspace said:
wheres WBT when you need him.. he would have the information.. :D

“To all the cynics, I'm sorry for you, ... I'm sorry you can't believe in miracles. This is a great sporting event and hard work wins it.”

Armstrong, the greatest rider of his generation, is counting on Catlin to help cement his legacy. Catlin will be paid by Astana, but McQuaid had no problem with that.

"I would have every faith that the results that he will find will be correct and transparent," McQuaid said in a telephone interview. "He wouldn't suffer fools, and he wouldn't be a man that would be involved in anything unethical or incorrect."

"I think this will be the most advanced anti-doping program in the world," Armstrong said. "I'm going to talk about it today; beyond today, I'm not going to tell you how clean I am, and I'm not going to insinuate how dirty the others are. "I'm going to ride my bike, I'm going to spread this message (about the fight against cancer) around the world, and Don Catlin can tell you if I'm clean or not."
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
dimspace said:
and i dont deny 1999... the rest... god knows.. (if you beleive in that kinda of thing... or is JB god :eek:)

God and anyone who has the wherewithal to read the information that is free and available online and at the library, but who's counting?

Oh, and you do have to use that little thing called logic, but it isn't a big jump, I promise.
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
Would you then agree with my logical assertion (and Kohl's claim) that it's highly likely that everyone who finishes in the top 50 or so of any major race is doped to some degree or another?
Not at top 50 now. I have better hopes for the last couple of years despite of Khol. At least I am seeing that on the TV in the Tour de France. I think that keeping the UCI slightly away from the race has been the key.
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
Would you then agree with my logical assertion (and Kohl's claim) that it's highly likely that everyone who finishes in the top 50 or so of any major race is doped to some degree or another?
You mean 100% clean? I think that question has been answered in other threads from people riding at the high level. I am not sure anybody rides 100% clean. Come on, not even a shot for pain? very difficult to believe.
Thanks.
 
Mar 10, 2009
6,158
1
0
Visit site
Don't forget the famous quote by Jonathan Vaughters to Frankie Andreu about Christophe Moreau. So I think its not 100% of the top 50.