Lance the Politician

[alastairknowles]

Came across this today, from Lance Armstrong:

"It just takes one person to say - it could be a guy who graduated last in his class - you know what they call a guy who graduated last in his class at medical school? That's right, Doctor! So it could be a guy who just got out of college and has one journalist who listens and says these are suspicious,"

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-abandons-independent-testing-publication-of-blood-values

All I can say is: (a) what an idiot, and; (b) I hope for his sake, that he never requires treatment from that Doctor.

 

[Rex Hunter]

I don't think he is smearing all doctors. He is merely pointing out that it only takes one person like this to raise a question about his blood profile, and it then becomes fact that he doped across the net. And it only takes one journalist to pick up on this.

In my view he his right that it's not worth the hassle.

 

[Publicus]

I don't think he is smearing all doctors. He is merely pointing out that it only takes one person like this to raise a question about his blood profile, and it then becomes fact that he doped across the net. And it only takes one journalist to pick up on this.

In my view he his right that it's not worth the hassle.

This is a classic smear job. He is simply trying to discredit the messenger so that folks dismiss the message being delivered. At no point has he come out and said why this Doctor is wrong. At no point.

More to the point, when you post your results on a website for the world to see, what do you think will happen? That everyone will accept that the results MUST demonstrate that you are not doping/using blood transfusions simply because you posted them? Of course not. Folks are going to comb through your data. If there is nothing there, then there is nothing there.

He's not posting the values because they raise suspicion. Period. I'd say more, but then this thread would get moved to the Clinic (where I suspect it is headed anyway).

And for the record, this decision, just raised (not lowered) suspicions around him (that and the lack of internal doping program).

 

[Rex Hunter]

This is a classic smear job. He is simply trying to discredit the messenger so that folks dismiss the message being delivered. At no point has he come out and said why this Doctor is wrong. At no point.

It's not really a smear job. He's pointing out that it only takes one doctor to question his results - and the Danish researcher, who was not even the head of his department, was the only person to do so in the world - and then it becomes fact that he doped.

More to the point, when you post your results on a website for the world to see, what do you think will happen? That everyone will accept that the results MUST demonstrate that you are not doping/using blood transfusions simply because you posted them? Of course not. Folks are going to comb through your data. If there is nothing there, then there is nothing there.

That's a bit naive. Blood results are not all the same - they are a matter of interpretation. All it takes is for something a bit unusual to occur and again it becomes fact that he doped. It's quite a smear itself. Even when there is nothing unusual, such as the Giro blood results, people still assert that he doped, so what exactly is the benefit of posting the results online? I think he's right to take them down - there is zero benefit to be had. No gain but potential pain.

 

[Publicus]

It's not really a smear job. He's pointing out that it only takes one doctor to question his results - and the Danish researcher, who was not even the head of his department, was the only person to do so in the world - and then it becomes fact that he doped.



That's a bit naive. Blood results are not all the same - t[hey are a matter of interpretation. All it takes is for something a bit unusual to occur and again it becomes fact that he doped. It's quite a smear itself. Even when there is nothing unusual, such as the Giro blood results, people still assert that he doped, so what exactly is the benefit of posting the results online? I think he's right to take them down - there is zero benefit to be had. No gain but potential pain.

Thanks for proving my point. Instead of addressing the concerns that this PhD student (who is working on developing a test to detect autologous blood transfusions) has raised, you, like Armstrong, try to undermine his credibility. Lance dismissed as a recent college graduate. You say he's not the head of the department. No real defense/explanation of the issues raised by the PhD student--which further heightens suspicions. The guy's credentials are unimpeachable. You can certainly try to question the science, but I think that will lead to uncomfortable questions that Armstrong doesn't want raised (and that will get this topic moved to the Clinic).

It's weak. And it puts the focus squarely back on Armstrong. If he has nothing to hide, then there is nothing to hide.

Btw, we know that he doped. Go check the clinic.

 

[Rex Hunter]

Thanks for proving my point. Instead of addressing the concerns that this PhD student (who is working on developing a test to detect autologous blood transfusions) has raised, you, like Armstrong, try to undermine his credibility. Lance dismissed as a recent college graduate. You say he's not the head of the department. No real defense/explanation of the issues raised by the PhD student--which further heightens suspicions. The guy's credentials are unimpeachable. You can certainly try to question the science, but I think that will lead to uncomfortable questions that Armstrong doesn't want raised (and that will get this topic moved to the Clinic).

It's weak. And it puts the focus squarely back on Armstrong. If he has nothing to hide, then there is nothing to hide.

Btw, we know that he doped. Go check the clinic.

I don't think you addressed any of my points here. The point I am making, and so is Lance Armstrong, is that it only takes one doctor to raise questions - and the Danish researcher was the only one in the world to do so, though Armstrong does not mention him here - and then it becomes fact that he doped. People like you then assert "we know that he doped." Well, no you don't know this. It's just an opinion. Blood results are about interpretation so anything unusual will always be questioned. That's the nature of it.

There was nothing unusual at all about the Giro blood results yet I'm sure you will continue to maintain "we know he doped" about that as well.

So please tell me, what is the point of publishing blood results? There is simply nothing to be gained from it. If they raise no questions, he will still be still termed a doper. If they show something ususual, then it's just cast iron fact that he doped. Why on earth would any rider want to do that? I suspect none of them will publish from now on. It was a nice experiment but it hasn't worked as an idea - there is too much down side with zero upside.

 

[Publicus]

I don't think you addressed any of my points here. The point I am making, and so is Lance Armstrong, is that it only takes one doctor to raise questions - and the Danish researcher was the only one in the world to do so, though Armstrong does not mention him here - and then it becomes fact that he doped. People like you then assert "we know that he doped." Well, no you don't know this. It's just an opinion. Blood results are about interpretation so anything unusual will always be questioned. That's the nature of it.

There was nothing unusual at all about the Giro blood results yet I'm sure you will continue to maintain "we know he doped" about that as well.

So please tell me, what is the point of publishing blood results? There is simply nothing to be gained from it. If they raise no questions, he will still be still termed a doper. If they show something ususual, then it's just cast iron fact that he doped. Why on earth would any rider want to do that? I suspect none of them will publish from now on. It was a nice experiment but it hasn't worked as an idea - there is too much down side with zero upside.

I addressed your point. If a doctor in the field raises questions or suggests that his values indicate autologous transfusions then answer the question or demonstrate why the doctor is wrong. That's the simplest way to put the issue to bed. Attacking the doctor's credibility just raises suspicions that he was in fact on to something. Again, this isn't some internet forum participant questioning his values. This is a guy who has focused his doctoral thesis on developing a test to detect autologous transfusions--he knows his stuff (and I understand that his boss backed up his statements).

As for why Lance published his blood results? That's a question for Lance Armstrong. He talked about it when he came out of retirement to raise cancer awareness. I don't want to misrepresent him so I won't paraphrase what I've learned.

And I'll say it again: Lance has in fact doped (1999 TdF). Check the Clinic.

THEY ARE DISCUSSING THIS VERY SUBJECT OVER IN THE CLINIC NOW. UNDER THE "ARMSTRONG LIES" THREAD.

 

[HL2037]

It's not really a smear job. He's pointing out that it only takes one doctor to question his results - and the Danish researcher, who was not even the head of his department, was the only person to do so in the world - and then it becomes fact that he doped.

That Danish researcher is one of the people in the world that knows most about the subject. I can assure you that he didn't graduate last in his class.

By the way, what is LA's academic background?

 

[Rex Hunter]

I addressed your point. If a doctor in the field raises questions or suggests that his values indicate autologous transfusions then answer the question or demonstrate why the doctor is wrong. That's the simplest way to put the issue to bed.

Again that's naive. If Lance Armstrong tried to argue with the doctor it would not put the matter to bed and would in fact make it ten times bigger than it is. You would not believe anything Armstrong said in his defense.

Attacking the doctor's credibility just raises suspicions that he was in fact on to something.

He hasn't attacked the doctor - he made a point that it would only take one doctor, of whatever standard, to raise a question for it to become true. I think Armstrong is correct about that. As it happens this doctor was farily young and not the head of his department - he was asked by a media organisation to look at it. Doesn't make him wrong, but it doesn't mean because one doctor in the world has raised questions it is therefore a fact that he doped. Not even this doctor has said that this is fact. He just said it was unusual and "could" be blood doping. It wasn't conclusive at all - otherwise questions would have been raised much earlier.

Again, this isn't some internet forum participant questioning his values. This is a guy who has focused his doctoral thesis on developing a test to detect autologous transfusions--he knows his stuff (and I understand that his boss backed up his statements).

Cycling news got the comments of other experts in the field for their article on this, and they weren't in agreement with the Danish doctor, so it obviously wasn't obvious that it was blood doping. There is a disagreement.

And I'll say it again: Lance has in fact doped (1999 TdF). Check the Clinic.

But you didn't say 1999. And we don't know that 100% either - there were no B samples - though it doesn't look good for Armstrong in that case. But are we to presume he must have doped for everything single other event because of 1999? I don't think so. That mentality is precisely why Armstrong can't win no matter what he blood results say. You have already worked out the answer.

 

[Ripper]

I posted this elewhere, but it seems to fit with here ...

My 'favourite' part of this whole press release is this quote ...

"So we took them down after that because we had put them up all year long in the vein of complete transparency, and to be attacked like that and accused of something is complete nonsense. It's not worth it. The testing we do through the international agencies and domestic agencies is going to have to be enough for the future."

This is just classic Strongarm. Let's just take a very light analysis of this, and not even take into account what other posters have already addressed above. In our current cycling culture, would anyone of reasonable intellect actually think if he or she was being completely transparent and posted their results, that there would be no critique, no intermittent questions? That, as far as I have ever seen in the world of medicine and science, is how we all become better - critique (or "attacked" as he put it). If you post all your results, it is reasonable to expect some questions (although his values produced more than a few ... don't get me started as that's been addressed before! ). But of course, Strongarm cannot be reasonable and provide answers, he'll just stop.

Kind of like how he 'stopped' talking to the press after the rider strike in the Giro. In some ways, I am surprised the media even wants to report on him anymore - they could just have a link to his twitter site on a daily basis

Thanks for listening to my little rant

The point being it is reasonable to expect doubt, that is what transparency is about. It is reasonable to expect questions, and it would be reasonable to the public to expect some answers. If we take this one step further and say, the questions are answered clearly and quickly, and the explanation is reasonable – the matter would quiet down quite quickly and similar ones would become less and less of an issue. In other words, it would be like crying wolf all the time when there is no wolf.

 

[Race Radio]

I don't think you addressed any of my points here. The point I am making, and so is Lance Armstrong, is that it only takes one doctor to raise questions - and the Danish researcher was the only one in the world to do so, though Armstrong does not mention him here - and then it becomes fact that he doped.

Wrong. Many Doctors questioned his numbers. The questioned him when His Hct went up 16.7% during a period of heavy training and racing. They questioned him when he changed multiple numbers so it did not look so obvious that he was doping. They questioned him when his Hct went up 10% in the last week of the Tour rather then drop 12% like an undoped rider's would.

To pretend that Morkeberg was the only person who questioned his numbers is silly. You don't have to be a doctor to know that such movements are very suspensions. Even Daamsgaard said as this from smaller changes in Raasmussen's numbers in 2006.

Just more smoke and mirror by Armstrong.

 

[SpeedWay]

Good for Lance and cycling that he stopped, at least in this instance, trying to please the haters. It's not only an unnecessary hassle it's also a lose/lose situation which he finally realized.

 

[Rex Hunter]

Wrong. Many Doctors questioned his numbers.

Like who?

__

 

[Race Radio]

Cycling news got the comments of other experts in the field for their article on this, and they weren't in agreement with the Danish doctor, so it obviously wasn't obvious that it was blood doping. There is a disagreement.

The Doctor they found to disagree was Damsgaard, who is employed by Armstrong. His statement directly contradicts what he said about smaller movements in Rassmussen profile.

"that the values rise during a hard race like the Tour de France, indicates that there has been a blood transfusion."

 

[Ripper]

Good for Lance and cycling that he stopped, at least in this instance, trying to please the haters. It's not only an unnecessary hassle it's also a lose/lose situation which he finally realized.

Yes, just like those pesky reported at the Giro. Not going to write what I want you too? Fine, I'm not holding any press conferences, I'll just post on twitter. But I'll hold press conferences later when it suits me again.

 

[Rex Hunter]

The Doctor they found to disagree was Damsgaard, who is employed by Armstrong. His statement directly contradicts what he said about smaller movements in Rassmussen profile.

"that the values rise during a hard race like the Tour de France, indicates that there has been a blood transfusion."

How do you know that Damsgaard didn't see something in the results that you have not seen? Damsgaard is known for having the highest of integrity.

There were other people asked for a comment in the CN article. None of them said it definitely was blood doping.

 

[Race Radio]

Like who?

__

Dr. Bo Belhage, Dr. Walter Schmidt, Dr. Jonathan Dugas and Dr. Ross Tucker (Sportscientist.com)

There is plenty of research to support the idea that Armstrong was doping, that is why the only people Cycling could get to support him was a guy on his payroll and a guy who is not in the field.

 

[Race Radio]

How do you know that Damsgaard didn't see something in the results that you have not seen? Damsgaard is known for having the highest of integrity.

There were other people asked for a comment in the CN article. None of them said it definitely was blood doping.

Ok, now I know you are joking. Dr. Belhage said

“I am completely in agreement with Jakob about his interpretation of the results,”

Damsgaard integrity? Perhaps that is why his boss and his hospital cut ties with him over his clear conflict while running the CSC program. His impartially has been questioned for years. Ignoring obvious questions around Armstrong's number how served to reinforce this.

http://www.sporten.dk/blog/jacob-staehelin/uholdbart

http://www.feltet.dk/index.php?id_parent=1&id=28&id_nyhed=17235

 

[Anonymous]

I posted this earlier in the Armstrong Lies thread. Why isn't this conversation in the clinic?

 

[Race Radio]

Good for Lance and cycling that he stopped, at least in this instance, trying to please the haters. It's not only an unnecessary hassle it's also a lose/lose situation which he finally realized.

Good for Lance for once again lying.

"Complete Transparency" "Anywhere, anytime"

Why is it the Armstrong groupies love lying so much?

 

[Rex Hunter]

Dr. Bo Belhage, Dr. Walter Schmidt, Dr. Jonathan Dugas and Dr. Ross Tucker (Sportscientist.com)

Are they medical doctors? Did they bring up these questions before or after the Danish story?

There is plenty of research to support the idea that Armstrong was doping, that is why the only people Cycling could get to support him was a guy on his payroll and a guy who is not in the field.

Damsgaard's relationship with Armstrong was already distant after they did not do the testing program. I'm not even sure he was still on the payroll by that point?

 

[Anonymous]

Came across this today, from Lance Armstrong:

"It just takes one person to say - it could be a guy who graduated last in his class - you know what they call a guy who graduated last in his class at medical school? That's right, Doctor! So it could be a guy who just got out of college and has one journalist who listens and says these are suspicious,"

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-abandons-independent-testing-publication-of-blood-values

All I can say is: (a) what an idiot, and; (b) I hope for his sake, that he never requires treatment from that Doctor.

Freaking hilarious! He puts his numbers up so that they can be examined. Someone examines them and questions some of the values as suspicious. Lance throws a hissy fit and stops all internal testing and publication of values. He should have put a disclaimer with his initial publication that read "you can look at these, and talk about them amongst yourselves so long as you agree that there is nothing wrong with them. Failure to comply will result in their removal." What a complete ***.

 

[Rex Hunter]

Mørkeberg has said that natural factors could possibly be an explanation, although at the same time both he and Belhage have described the progression of blood values as unusual and worthy of further scrutiny.

So not conclusive at all.

And Armstrong was also defended by this top scientist:

As stated earlier, Armstrong has not responded as yet. In the meantime he has been defended by the Norwegian professor Hans Erik Heier, who said that he didn’t believe an athlete with such blood levels was doping. “The hemoglobin values are too low for it to be possible to manipulate them down there,” he told Dagbladet. “I interpret this to mean that he must be clean.”

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/analysis-armstrongs-tour-blood-levels-debated

 

[Cerberus]

Are they medical doctors? Did they bring up these questions before or after the Danish story?

Why does that even matter? You realize that for any given statement someone has to say it first right?

Damsgaard's relationship with Armstrong was already distant after they did not do the testing program. I'm not even sure he was still on the payroll by that point?

That's all right. I am. So is everyone else who has done 5 secs of googling. Do I need to post a link that Damsgaard was working for Astana or can you use Google yourself?

 

[Anonymous]

I don't think he is smearing all doctors. He is merely pointing out that it only takes one person like this to raise a question about his blood profile, and it then becomes fact that he doped across the net. And it only takes one journalist to pick up on this.

In my view he his right that it's not worth the hassle.

Funny, Lance pulls a complete hypocritical hissy fit, and you show up to spin the thing. Wow, your timing is suspicious.