Lance's program was superior? The evidence

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Feb 21, 2010
1,007
0
0
I think the doping program was equal in their approach but better in application due to UCI protection. They all used the medicines available but USPS has the tip offs and the extra notice so as to better modulate and maximize once they started a stage.

Most teams devoted a good amount of time previewing critical stages, working on their aero equipment, etc. But through the bulk of the years of LA winning, few teams had the overall "muscle" to impose themselves, meaning the team compositions were also better. Heras, Rubiera, Hamilton, Landis, Livingston, George, Pena, Padrnos, Noval,... this is some chunk of horsepower.

Additionally, the central figure, Lance, operated from the position of the "favorite", which is also an upper hand when it comes to controlling the race. They clearly were comfortable with it.
 
Jan 20, 2011
352
0
0
So in short the superior program was due to money. The more wins, the more money , the more favors, the more wins. Rinse and repeat.
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
Colm.Murphy said:
I think the doping program was equal in their approach but better in application due to UCI protection. They all used the medicines available but USPS has the tip offs and the extra notice so as to better modulate and maximize once they started a stage.

Most teams devoted a good amount of time previewing critical stages, working on their aero equipment, etc. But through the bulk of the years of LA winning, few teams had the overall "muscle" to impose themselves, meaning the team compositions were also better. Heras, Rubiera, Hamilton, Landis, Livingston, George, Pena, Padrnos, Noval,... this is some chunk of horsepower.

Additionally, the central figure, Lance, operated from the position of the "favorite", which is also an upper hand when it comes to controlling the race. They clearly were comfortable with it.
SOMETHING that Ferrari brought to the table led both he and Armstrong to believe it had added value. Value great enough to justify an exclusive agreement and whatever premium in cost that justified. That cost MUST have been significant: enough to supplant whatever monies Ferrari lost by dropping or not taking on additional clients, and this guy WAS popular.

Add to that the fact that neither Armstrong nor the Hog are stupid when it comes to preparation. Also, Armstrong has never been known for throwing money away needlessly.

If the Ferrari program was the same as a Cecchini program, then why bother with an agreement? Why pay extra? Why not just use Cecchini?
 
Jun 21, 2010
308
0
0
7 straight Tour victories provides ample counterevidence to the theory of systemic doping. The odds of not getting busted under that level of scrutiny or a teammate collecting syringes in a beer can (a la Roger Clemens trainer) are absurdly low. And when such large amounts of hush money are rumored to be involved, it is extremely likely that a rat would either: (a) take the hush money and sign a book deal anyway; or (b) ask for too much hush money and then go public. Look @ Contador - he was able to dope and win for only 3 years before being busted. Getting to 7 win the world gunning for you? Almost impossible.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
warmfuzzies said:
7 straight Tour victories provides ample counterevidence to the theory of systemic doping. The odds of not getting busted under that level of scrutiny or a teammate collecting syringes in a beer can (a la Roger Clemens trainer) are absurdly low. And when such large amounts of hush money are rumored to be involved, it is extremely likely that a rat would either: (a) take the hush money and sign a book deal anyway; or (b) ask for too much hush money and then go public. Look @ Contador - he was able to dope and win for only 3 years before being busted. Getting to 7 win the world gunning for you? Almost impossible.
if the UCI did their job properly he wouldn't have had 1 with LA testing positive for steroids in 1999 ;), but a TUE sorted that along with donations to the uci:D

PS Indurain won 5 and has kept them all.
 
Feb 21, 2010
1,007
0
0
MacRoadie said:
SOMETHING that Ferrari brought to the table led both he and Armstrong to believe it had added value. Value great enough to justify an exclusive agreement and whatever premium in cost that justified. That cost MUST have been significant: enough to supplant whatever monies Ferrari lost by dropping or not taking on additional clients, and this guy WAS popular.

Add to that the fact that neither Armstrong nor the Hog are stupid when it comes to preparation. Also, Armstrong has never been known for throwing money away needlessly.

If the Ferrari program was the same as a Cecchini program, then why bother with an agreement? Why pay extra? Why not just use Cecchini?
I agree regarding Ferrari, cornering the market on the top Dr. certainly is a value. I should have been clearer in stating they were all using the same meds and blood techniques. Ferrari's approach was unique enough to take him off the market and keep him exclusive.

Conversely, all those "sharing" Fuentes would be now the case study for "How Not to Do It".
 
Jul 18, 2010
709
0
0
warmfuzzies said:
7 straight Tour victories provides ample counterevidence to the theory of systemic doping. The odds of not getting busted under that level of scrutiny or a teammate collecting syringes in a beer can (a la Roger Clemens trainer) are absurdly low. And when such large amounts of hush money are rumored to be involved, it is extremely likely that a rat would either: (a) take the hush money and sign a book deal anyway; or (b) ask for too much hush money and then go public. Look @ Contador - he was able to dope and win for only 3 years before being busted. Getting to 7 win the world gunning for you? Almost impossible.
Contador, like Landis, Hamilton, Heras, Beltran and others only were busted after leaving the protective umbrella of Bruyneel/Armstrong. Contador's positive was a forgone conclusion after his war with Armstrong and Bruyneel in 2009, just like Landis' fall from grace.

Don't you find it odd that not one Tour contender from 1999 thru 2005 tested positive at the Tour while we now know for a fact that doping was rampant throughout that time period?
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
warmfuzzies said:
7 straight Tour victories provides ample counterevidence to the theory of systemic doping...
warmfuzzies said:
...Look @ Contador - he was able to dope and win for only 3 years before being busted. Getting to 7 win the world gunning for you? Almost impossible.
So, which is it? It's only evidence of systemic doping if you get away with it (or manage to avoid it) for something over three years?
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
Merckx index said:
There have long been allegations that Armstrong’s TDF success resulted from not simply doping, but having access to superior drugs and/or superior methods for using the same drugs used by other riders. Several months ago I asked someone on this forum who makes this claim, I can’t remember who, to gather and post all the available evidence for this. So far as I know, he never did.

It seems to me that this would be a good time to revisit this issue. Here are some of the possible ways in which LA might conceivably have obtained an edge over rivals we now know were doping, such as Ulle, Basso and Vino.

1) unique drugs - the SI story’s discussion of HemAssist raises the possibility that LA was using a blood booster that could not have been detected at the time. In addition to the difficulty in obtaining this or another HBOC, though, there are questions about both it’s safety and efficacy. We will probably have to wait to see what comes out of Novitzky’s investigation. Another possibility is per fluorocarbons (PFCs), but as far as I know, no evidence has come to light that LA might have used these. Still another possibility is the use of advanced forms of EPO, such as CERA, ahead of the time during which they became fairly widely available to the peloton. There was a window when they could not be detected, so that any rider using them during this period would not have even had to microdose, the usual way of avoiding detection.

Are there any other drugs that are performance enhancing, were not in use as far as is known by the peloton during the Armstrong years, and which he might have used? I’m not going to discuss gene doping, though it can’t be entirely ruled out.

2) superior program - It’s well established that LA was advised by Ferrari for many years, and the recent evidence from the raid on Popo’s house suggests that he might never have terminated this association, despite his claim to have done so following Ferrari’s legal troubles. The key questions here are, did Ferrari make available to LA procedures that were 1) clearly superior to those other riders were using; and b) intended exclusively for LA’s use? I would like someone here to address the first point in detail, if possible. How, specifically, could Ferrari have provided to LA information that would have enabled him to get more performance benefit than other riders? With respect to the second point, it has been claimed that LA was Ferrari’s sole client during much of this TDF success. However, as far as I know, this is based on negative evidence. No other rider is known for certain to have been associated with Ferrari during this period. I’m quite sure Ferrari himself has never discussed this.

Another relevant question is, if LA was indeed Ferrari's sole client, how did he make this arrangement? Was he really capable of outspending any of his rivals, even before he won his first Tour? Did Ferrari want to focus solely on LA? But if so, why, given that LA showed less promise initially as a GT rider than several if not many of his contemporaries?

3) help from UCI - It has also been alleged that LA was able to avoid being tested at critical times, or that incriminating test results were covered up. In support of this we have long known about the backdated TUE, and now the SI story discusses several T/E positives that, strangely, could not be confirmed with positive B samples. There have been several stories of LA being warned in advance of testers. There is also indirect evidence, such as LA’s donations of money for equipment to UCI, which strongly suggests a conflict of interest. What other evidence do we have of this relationship?

I would love to see any other information related to the question of superior performance enhancement discussed here.
This is an unusually good post in the clinic. Rational, well though out, and unemotional.

That being said, I think there are a couple of points that should raise further avenues of investigation.

The first is money. Ferrari and others definitely had other clients, and that is particularly apparent when you chase down other athletes for criticizing him.

However, his list includes, Leipheimer, Landis, Hincapie, Axel Merckx, Michael Rogers, and Cipollini among others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Ferrari

Ferrari demonstrates that success in the training world is not based upon one athlete. (Carmichael obviously offers training advice to others as well, as does Fuentes). Lance would have had to have had some very serious cash to tempt a trainer (indeed an entire supply chain of PED's) to funnel a supply of drugs to just him. It is far too easy for a corrupt trainer to offer the same cocktail to other clients and have them deliver similar boosted results as 'proof' of his training's success.

Additionally, with such a large amount of money needed, this would present a fairly obvious money trail to follow. If client x is only paying 5% what Lance was paying, that is a fairly obvious tip off that something is amiss. At some point the sums of money would have to originate from the demand side, and there should be a trail leading back to Ferrari if that supposition is true. To date, there has been no talk of money - other than donations to the UCI which quite obviously did not go to Ferrari - that would implicate Armstrong in such activities.

The simple fact of the matter is that the supply chains of drugs exist because they are lucrative, and in order to be lucrative they have to inexpensive enough for people of modest means to afford (BALCO? Papp?) and extensive enough that they are worth the effort to conduct (Operation Puerto).

I think there is something to be said of so many top athletes accussed of doping being clients of Fuentes, and the abscence of Armstrong from that list - in Spain where they trained. Nor indeed is his name coming up in the Austrian drug probe or the French rings that have been busted up. As we peel back the lid on doping and start to see the mechanisms, the abscence of Armstrong from the confirmed doping rings is telling.
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
La Pandera said:
Contador, like Landis, Hamilton, Heras, Beltran and others only were busted after leaving the protective umbrella of Bruyneel/Armstrong. Contador's positive was a forgone conclusion after his war with Armstrong and Bruyneel in 2009, just like Landis' fall from grace.

Don't you find it odd that not one Tour contender from 1999 thru 2005 tested positive at the Tour while we now know for a fact that doping was rampant throughout that time period?
So how was it that Basso and Ullrich got caught? They were 'never' under the USPS protective umbrella?

Perhaps they were not busted while on th USPS team because they were not using PED's during that time?

Or maybe it was because everyone was so focused on the white whale Armstrong that they simply neglected to test other athletes on USPS to the extent that they should have?

There are other plausible explanations besides conspiracy that can cause the same result, and, absent proof, all are equally valid. The benefit of the doubt in such cases should never be toward guilt, but innocence.
 
Feb 18, 2010
18
0
0
Might his "superior programme" simply be that he raced with crit around 60%?
If he supposedly had all this protection from the UCI it seems as if he could do anything he wanted? I mean he climbed at about the same level as Pantani in his prime, and i believe Pantani were found to have raced with crit 60%++ no?

I mean in the context that the rest raced under the max 50% rule, which you surely understood, but just to make clear...
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
gree0232 said:
So how was it that Basso and Ullrich got caught? They were 'never' under the USPS protective umbrella?

Perhaps they were not busted while on th USPS team because they were not using PED's during that time?

Or maybe it was because everyone was so focused on the white whale Armstrong that they simply neglected to test other athletes on USPS to the extent that they should have?

There are other plausible explanations besides conspiracy that can cause the same result, and, absent proof, all are equally valid. The benefit of the doubt in such cases should never be toward guilt, but innocence.
Operation Puerto, was nothing to do with the uci;) they got busted by the various nations again nothing to do with uci.



edited Porto to Peurto
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
Benotti69 said:
Operation Porto, was nothing to do with the uci;) they got busted by the various nations again nothing to do with uci.
And that has what to do with a supply chain?

1. The UCI is NOT a police organization. Are we now faulting the UCI for not acting like a police organization? :eek:

2. Operation Puerto was busted because the trail of athletes (beyond cycling) that we found to have doped, or suspected to have doped, lead back to Fuentes, where, like magic, we find the various paraphinalia of doping - including evidence that SHOULD have been used for DNA testing and sanction.

A loop hole in Spainish Law, now closed, prevented that, but the UCI fought very hard to gain access to that information and use it ti sanction riders anyway. Valverde is now sanctioned as a result of those efforts, in conjuction with OTHER national federations (including German vs. Ullrich).

The point is not about a vast conspiracy, the point is about the ACTUALITY of doping and the supplies of dope that are required and teh machinary to administer it.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
gree0232 said:
And that has what to do with a supply chain?

1. The UCI is NOT a police organization. Are we now faulting the UCI for not acting like a police organization? :eek:

2. Operation Puerto was busted because the trail of athletes (beyond cycling) that we found to have doped, or suspected to have doped, lead back to Fuentes, where, like magic, we find the various paraphinalia of doping - including evidence that SHOULD have been used for DNA testing and sanction.

A loop hole in Spainish Law, now closed, prevented that, but the UCI fought very hard to gain access to that information and use it ti sanction riders anyway. Valverde is now sanctioned as a result of those efforts, in conjuction with OTHER national federations (including German vs. Ullrich).

The point is not about a vast conspiracy, the point is about the ACTUALITY of doping and the supplies of dope that are required and teh machinary to administer it.
Wrong again Gree -
Puerto was instigated because of a Manzano a cyclist.

Valverde being sanctioned was because of CONI, not the UCI.

Ullrich has never been sanctioned for Puerto, and his license is Swiss not German.
 
May 10, 2009
4,638
1
0
gree0232 said:
And that has what to do with a supply chain?

1. The UCI is NOT a police organization. Are we now faulting the UCI for not acting like a police organization? :eek:

2. Operation Puerto was busted because the trail of athletes (beyond cycling) that we found to have doped, or suspected to have doped, lead back to Fuentes, where, like magic, we find the various paraphinalia of doping - including evidence that SHOULD have been used for DNA testing and sanction.

A loop hole in Spainish Law, now closed, prevented that, but the UCI fought very hard to gain access to that information and use it ti sanction riders anyway. Valverde is now sanctioned as a result of those efforts, in conjuction with OTHER national federations (including German vs. Ullrich).

The point is not about a vast conspiracy, the point is about the ACTUALITY of doping and the supplies of dope that are required and teh machinary to administer it.
Valverde's sanctioning came about not because of the UCI, but because CONI took it on themselves to match the DNA with the blood in the Madrid bags with samples taken during the Giro.
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
Digger said:
Valverde's sanctioning came about not because of the UCI, but because CONI took it on themselves to match the DNA with the blood in the Madrid bags with samples taken during the Giro.
This is why gree remains on my permanent ignore list. Not a single point in any post is correct.
 
Aug 11, 2009
729
0
0
gree0232 said:
So how was it that Basso and Ullrich got caught?
"Got caught"? Oh, come on, now: don't you mean "never tested positive"?

I hope you don't believe in all of that purely circumstantial evidence.

Innocent until proven guilty, right? Where's your sense of due process?
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
The following comes courtesy of the guy who runs Fraudbytes.com, Mark Zimbelman. Thanks Mark!:

---------------
Although they were doped....the racing was sure epic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2FQqHF8x5I

and 7 years later:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/01/road/flashback-gallery-the-col-du-galibier-in-the-2005-tour-de-france_156502#

The most amazing thing about this is the Armstrong photo....all the known dopers....and Armstrong still has 3 teamates in front of him! Hmmmm.

10 riders drop the entire field....and 4 of them all race for one team.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Benotti69 said:
i fully accept that some people need a kick up the ****, a few post on here;)
Please listen to these facts. Armstrong took third in the tour 09.

IMO it wasn't because of dope, his team or the weakness of his opposition.

It was because he was and is Lance. If you doubt me watch the cyclo cross move he made when Beloki crashed out of the tour and his cycling career.

Getting up from a crash, caused by a spectator careless with his musette on a tour climb repassing the opposition, winning the stage pure Lance. Not dope, just the man and his character.

These problems Lance is having now, I cannot predict the outcome, however Lance will overcome them. He will return to his rightful mantle as ALPHA DOG.

Beautiful I shall always love Lance for his persona. He is stunning and inspiring.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
flicker said:
If you doubt me watch the cyclo cross move he made when Beloki crashed out of the tour and his cycling career.
Like he had much choice. That could just as easily been a spectacular endo.

flicker said:
Getting up from a crash, caused by a spectator careless with his musette on a tour climb repassing the opposition, winning the stage pure Lance. Not dope, just the man and his character.
THAT's rocket fuel. Rocket fuel plus adrenaline and epinepherine.

flicker said:
He will return to his rightful mantle as ALPHA DOG.
Without a doubt.

 
Aug 11, 2009
729
0
0
flicker said:
Getting up from a crash, caused by a spectator careless with his musette on a tour climb repassing the opposition, winning the stage pure Lance. Not dope, just the man and his character.
Okay, the first sentence above I agree with wholeheartedly; the second sentence--not so much.

The famous Lance mentality; the need to rage against something; the mixture of misfortune, good fortune, pain, and triumph...none of that is a "myth."

The notion that the above qualities are all that it took for Lance to be Lance--that's the myth.
 
Aug 3, 2009
169
0
0
BotanyBay said:
Like he had much choice. That could just as easily been a spectacular endo.
It certainly could have been. Had it been, I doubt Lance would be in the position he is today. He would simply be loved world wide as a multi-TDF winner and cancer survivor. New cheaters would have stepped up.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
ergmonkey said:
Okay, the first sentence above I agree with wholeheartedly; the second sentence--not so much.

The famous Lance mentality; the need to rage against something; the mixture of misfortune, good fortune, pain, and triumph...none of that is a "myth."

The notion that the above qualities are all that it took for Lance to be Lance--that's the myth.
I see it differently, Lance playing mind games with guys like Ulrich, Basso and Iban Mayo.

I seriously doubt that those three could not have smoked Armstrong in a TT, hillclimbing stage or multiple mountain climbing. Same with Beloki, I think Lance out psyced those 4. Hamilton must have doped strong as any rider and yet he could not beat Armstrong.

I think with Armstrong it is and was a mental mind blitz along with his phisical powers that made him so potent.

I don't believe this hem assist is enough to make him the force he was during his potent tour years.
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
flicker said:
I don't believe this hem assist is enough to make him the force he was during his potent tour years.
You're absolutely right.

The EPO they found in his pee, and his whacked T/E ratios probably helped as well.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 2

ASK THE COMMUNITY